If we assume their base mortality rate is 0.1%, that the pool is only 100, and that the deaths are completely independent (and we know that since they were both whistleblowers, both worked for the sample employer, that may very well not be true), it's a low probability case, yes. The sense is that those are both extremely conservative numbers.
Try looking at the cumulative probability for P(X>=2) when you manipulate the numbers a bit. Even if you just change the base probability of mortality to 1%, it jumps to 26% chance. If you restrict the population to 32 people, the threshold for it be more likely to happen than not is a 5.2% chance of death.
I'm not sure why you think the 0.5% figure is relevant. One of them was 62. Even if they were both 45-55, their risk of death would no doubt be dramatically higher than the mean. They were both whistle blowers, and not just ordinary whistle blowers, but whistle blowers in a high profile story. IIRC, at least one of them had been fired from their job in the last year. That's not average for that age group.
Here is how to use the calculator, because you're still messing up the math a bit. We'll assume a 1% chance of death, and a population of 32.
---
Probability = 0.01
Number of Trials = 32
Number of Successes = 2
Now you look at cumulative probability (P X>=2) = 4%
---
You are correct that if bump the chances up to an annual 5.2% of death, then finally it starts becoming reasonably probable. So, for contrast, whistle blowers at Boeing seem to have approximately the same survival rate as somebody diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer.
