Well first, the linked article was regarding a weather balloon that impacted the windscreen, not the engine, and it did cause an injury to the flight crew. Here are pictures of the bloody, glass-shard filled flight deck. https://www.facebook.com/aviation247/posts/n17327-united-air... So the hazard is real.

Now back to your uninformed comment. I do certification testing of jet engines, and we most certainly DO NOT test jet engines against the ingestion of airborne electronics.

I have personally loaded and fired the five barrel bird gun at General Electric’s Peebles Test operation many times over the years. We use a range of birds and bird simulators, but none of them are ever chickens, and none of them are frozen.

There is not any requirement for zero engine damage. Little sparrows will do no damage. Ducks and geese cause extensive damage every single time. Extensive engine damage is permitted so long that the engine shuts down without causing catastrophic damage to the airframe. The specific damage that must be prevented, per 14 cfr 33.75, is below. Any other damage is acceptable.

(i) Non-containment of high-energy debris;

(ii) Concentration of toxic products in the engine bleed air intended for the cabin sufficient to incapacitate crew or passengers;

(iii) Significant thrust in the opposite direction to that commanded by the pilot;

(iv) Uncontrolled fire;

(v) Failure of the engine mount system leading to inadvertent engine separation;

(vi) Release of the propeller by the engine, if applicable; and

(vii) Complete inability to shut the engine down.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C...

High-Altitude Adventure with a DIY Pico Balloon