Now I don't know exactly what occurred here - nor does anyone except for the crew.
BUT - nowhere in the Boeing QRH does it mention "Emergency Descent". It simply states "Reduce pressure differential by limiting flight altitude". It then gives a guide, and 10,000ft is indicated, or 2psi cabin diff.
So - an unnecessary emergency descent has likely caused significant injury to several passengers in my opinion.
Now - good airmanship dictates that the Captain makes the decision as to whether to carry out an emergency descent or not. So, the Captain here obviously thought it was a god idea. Fair enough.
But when the emergency was complete, and the crew realised that a significant number of passengers had suffered injuries as a result of the descent, and quite possibly the aircraft was seriously damaged (otherwise the captain wouldn't have decided an emergency descent was necessary), why no diversion to RK, or MK? Or nearest suitable?
Sorry to be so quick to critisise, but I've seen cracked windscreens in 737's, and whilst it isscary sh1t, there is no excuse for unnecessarily injuring passengers by not following the QRH, then when you have, not getting them to help ASAP.
Fathom? The Boeing 737 QRH DOES NOT say the things that you have stated. It does not suggest "Continue as normal". Nor does it suggest "Land ASAP".
Long Hauler? No, they DID NOT follow the Non Normal checklist for this type.