We saw the same thing with solar thermal: "oh no the birds will fry" -well sure, some will. but compared to birds hitting glass towers, birds dying in other ways, feral cats.. not a biggie.
For specific threatened species, there are mitigations which have to be considered with wind towers. It's not nothing. But its functionally exceeded by the real risk.
IIRC, it's not collisions that cause most deaths, it's actually pressure effects (barotrauma; to which bats are reportedly more susceptible - eg Barclay et al. "... bat fatalities ..." paper[s]).
Larger species of bird get displaced which has a knock-on effect to the local eco-system. A particularly important point if the species is struggling to survive.
From the studies I've seen, only maybe a dozen on these topics, the bigger issue is effect on bats.
Also, fwiw, fracking and other fossil fuels do more damage to bird populations than wind turbines; but I don't feel that means we should be complacent. It's right to properly monitor the effects of new technologies on the wider environment.
There's definitely a worrying difference in reporting of 'green' harms in Western media (eg Loss et al. "Estimates of bird collisions ...").
This is a moral panic emanating from the same people who brought you "climate change isn't real because snow still happens". If you look at graphs of the number of preventable bird deaths due to human causes, the graph is dominated by outdoor cats (which kill billions per year), then a sliver of that is from window collisions, then the part attributable to wind turbines is too small to be visible.
https://birdhistory.substack.com/p/the-first-cat-war (graph near the bottom)