The problem, as ever, is that the initial sparse information doesn't accurately describe the real situation.
It is easy to assume from the title/headline that there was some sort of engine failure after take off, followed by a decision to continue on to destination, whereas the actual situation appears to be damage incurred after take off/in the departure, but not adversely affecting performance. The crew then subsequently decided on a precautionary shutdown (for whatever reasons), along with an assessment of the actual situation in flight, as well as conditions and risks to be encountered as a result.
A plan was formulated, and a relatively uneventful outcome was the result.
Aren't we all expected to not make the situation any worse than it already is, if we can manage it?
The only casualties involved being to the reputation of a numpty who mistook the situation as an opportunity for 15 minutes of, as it turned out, infamy. And the bird. The latter being the only one unable to walk away from the subsequent landing.