Just a few comments from the sideline re: Bloomberg being a reputable source and the reason why media use phraseology like "people familiar with the investigation".
As a seasoned journalist, I can speak with some authority on that one. Media have their own standard phraseology, just like in aviation with ATC. The "people familiar with ..." or similar should be read as an actual insider, not some armchair expert form this esteemed forum. A journalist worth his salt wouldn't dare to use that code for something he picked up from some random guy from the interwebs. One simple reason: deniability. It's easy to refute, because it's most likely not accurate. And we really hate being proven wrong.
If I should pick up something from this forum and pass it on as "official information" under the guise of "people familiar with", I can be sure of two things: One, it's probably bogus, and two, someone who is actually familiar with the investigation will set his lawyers in motion because of that. Worst case, that will result in stopped printing machines and hundreds of thousands in losses for my publisher. So again, no journalist who takes his or her profession seriously would take that risk.
Bloomberg may go over the top with the occasional headline, but they are one of the few reputable news sources left that still adhere to old-school standards. So is the WSJ. I know or knew people working at both outlets. If they refer to "people familiar with the investigation", I am pretty confident that they actually talked to someone very familiar with the investigation who is not authorized to speak officially (or "on the record", as we call it) about it. My guess would be someone from FAA or Boeing, who is directly involved, but can't speak in an official capacity because it nominally is a Chinese investigation.
That said (and back on topic), what the article is saying is that with aviation becoming safer overall and fatal aircraft accidents rarer, the low number of pilot extended suicides claims a growing percentage of commercial aviation deaths. Wikipedia records about 25 crashes confirmed to have been caused by suicidal pilots during the last 50 years, that's two per year on average. So this is clearly becoming a more pressing issue for the aviation industry.
And while I support corporations looking after their employees and taking care of mental health issues just as the next guy, you need to draw a line somewhere. Do we need to further de-stigmatize depression and other mental health issues? Sure. I have had colleagues dealing with a variety of issues – depression, anxieties, substance abuse, you name it – who sometimes jeopardized production because of their problems. They got help. In the end, that's just money, nobody got hurt.
But you don't want somebody gripped by depression or bipolar disorder on the pointy end of an aircraft or an operating table. Fighting societal stigma is one thing, but we need to accept that some jobs are not for everybody. Of course you can't prevent everything, but there were a lot of red flags ignored by a lot of people in the Germanwings case. That pilot was put in a cockpit despite having a record of mental health issues. But back in the day, I couldn't become a pilot – because I am too tall.
"..Wikipedia records about 25 crashes confirmed to have been caused by suicidal pilots during the last 50 years, that's two per year on average..."
Unless I'm missing something, isn't that 1 per 2 years?