I'm intrigued and saddened that with such safety-critical data sources (Air Data sensors), there is still little redundancy in design offered. I.e. Are there 3 different air data sensors designed by 3 different companies, based on 3 different sampling principles, and then 3 of each onboard?! Pilots, and computers/software, can only compute and respond effectively (without error) if their senses / sensors can guarantee dependable data.
Temporary pitot failure may have been a factor, but it's not a good enough reason in itself for an otherwise fully intact a/c to fall from the sky. They recognized UAS, there's a procedure for it, why didn't they apply it? Or at least common sense? The plane was flying well before the pitots failed, it would very likely have continued to do so if they had maintained pitch and thrust. Instead for reasons yet unclear they performed a manoeuvre leading into a stall. Then they either failed to interpret the situation or didn't / couldn't apply appropriate measures to recover from it. Again for reasons unknown yet.
There's still far too much open questions and to most of them 'pitots' doesn't seem to be a good answer.