Chronus
It's a matter of probabilities matched against capability of the engine.
There are all kinds of parameters at play. If you stack the worst together then any single engine is going to lose power.
All the FAA can do in response to the NTSB rec is sort the existing data in-service against the existing technology in their crystal ball.
The existing data, simply put, suggest more planes will be lost for other reasons, not yet addressed fully, vs a Sully repeat in the next ten years.
So the challenge is where does one put the limited resources (manpower, time, money, equipment).
As with all enviromental threats, birds, ice, rain/hail, the balance need also consider avoidance of the encounter as well. Yet such avoidance (birds) also involves actions outside engines, aircraft, airports, operations and also involves the public acceptance of the bird existing as a threat.
The action will be to continue to monitor all these contributions for areas that lend themselves to improvements rather than degradations
Incidently from a cost standpoint, anything you do at the engine level that impacts fuel burn will have the biggest impact fleet wide. It's truly amazing that we got as far as a ten fold decrease in bird ingestion catastrophic risk in the last 20 years and yet still managed to flood the market with long range twin engine aircraft and better seat mile expenses.