There is no problem, so there can’t really be a solution, you know. Parasitical attacks and infections, even ones which wipe out a population, are hardly unknown or unexpected in the animal kingdom. The brief and pointless media frenzy was an idiotic attempt to panic everyone, apparently by the ignorantly environmental.
There was a fascinating BBC documentary on the subject a couple of nights ago called Who Killed the Honey Bee; it’s on the BBC iplayer at the moment, but I don’t know if non-UK residents can access it…
How does the fact that attacks extincting* a species are common lead to the conclusion that the possible extinction of the honey bee is “no problem?”
You might dispute that the honeybee might have been extincted, but that’s not the approach you took in this post. In this post you just said there was “no problem” and you explicitly said that’s the case even if the attack might have wiped out a population (by which I assume you meant the honeybee species?)
The fact that parasitical attacks and infections exist is not news. The particular parasitical attack or infection in this case is. The results of this particular instance are. You are being very dismissive without any justification.
So they really don’t know if this is the cause of colony collapse disorder, or just something they found this one time. It’s not yet time to rub it to all the people who claimed, “there’s no such thing as colony collapse disorder.”
But, smiling bandit, wtf? Did your psychological defense mechanisms pop up?
Well, Alex, to be fair, nothing else has been identified as the primary cause, either. That’s why it has been a mystery. The other hypotheses were (and presumably are) under investigation, but not confirmed. So the fact that they are legitimately pointing out that so far their results have been limited to two apiaries does not preclude that colony collapse disorder is real, or that this cause is the major cause. It only recognizes the early stages of their results.