This, if anything, suggests that the doom mongers are over-egging things.
Drone hits plane.
Plane not damaged.
Initial indications from an initially miniscule research set suggests that drone strikes do not hurt aircraft. As more collisions happen, I'm quite sure that eventually one will go down an engine. That will be more indicative of whether there is actually a problem.
Ummm...NASA used similar logic twice with less than impressive results.
Solid Rocket Booster partial O-Ring burn throughs happened on several occasions early in the shuttle programme. Flagged up by engineers and other "doom mongers" such as John Young as an accident waiting to happen but not acted on: Result was the Challenger accident and FWIW Richard Feynman's statement that "nature cannot be fooled"...
Foam strikes damaged Shuttle orbiter tiles on multiple occasions..again engineers, no doubt again being "doom mongers", had serious concerns.. but that problem was not acted upon because it was inconvenient and difficult to do so. It was only
after the Columbia accident that it was decided to run a full scale test of a block of insulating foam hitting a wing LE at a representative velocity....
I don't want to see a ban on drones, but I'm finding it hard to understand the apparent reluctance of some to accept that it might be not be a good idea for unregulated drones to be sharing the same airspace as commercial air traffic.