Give us a break!
So, based on one journalists interpretation we have a judge, jury and executioner telling us all that the crew must have ignored the possibility of turbulence and then decided that they would continue to their destination with a pile of near-corpses, groaning whilst their wounds seeped and festered.
"Injury". Have you even stopped to think about the term? It could mean a paper cut, a simple bruise or, of course, an amputation or whatever. Just because the report says there were "injuries" doesn't mean that they were serious.
Are you telling us that if one of the crew got a blister from touching a hot tray from the oven tha you'd divert immediately? Of course not. But hang on.... that's a burn injury. Quick, I have no mre facts. They should have diverted immediately. Condemn them and their airline.
I have no doubt that KLM have access to the same services that most legacy and other well run airlines have, namely MedLink. Using that service you get immediate access to a doctor who is trained to assess any injuries described by the trained cabin crew or even a doctor who is on board. Based on the assessment they will recommend whether to divert immediately or whether there is no need. Any injuries or illnesses are assessed and if, as in most cases, the injury has been treated with adequate first aid then the flight can continue.
If any injuries or illnesses are assessed as needing immediate treatment at a hospital they will then advise on which hospital is best suited and equipped to handle the patients. It does not mean that they will recommend diversion to the nearest airport but to the nearest airport to a suitable medical facility which can treat the symptoms.
So, please spare us the Kangaroo Court and the immediate rush to judgement. The only facts you have are a couple of lines of journalistic licence and immediately you claim to know the facts and condemn the crew and the airline. Well, I guess that's it. Case closed.