A certain percentage of people received infected blood over a 20 year period. Of those people, 10% died.
It doesn't explain
- the percentage of people that received infected blood vs total transfusions.
- how long the victims lived after receiving blood transfusions.
- how many would have died without blood transfusions.
- how many had co-mortality issues
Also, the report concluded that the disaster should have been largely avoided. The article doesn't quantify the word largely. 90 percent? 80 percent? Would this mean that the true number of victims (those who died) would be 2,400 instead of 3,000?
Of course its bad, its very bad! The victims deserve full reparations. However, we need to be realists here and acknowledge that medical progress has helped people in general live much longer than they ever did in the past. Obviously, it doesn't give NHS a free pass to lie and cover up things. That's why there must be consequences. Still, the severity of this situation can be measured and reported better than what I've seen from this article.
As for JW speakers all over the world, they without a doubt use this and make it sound like you will definitely get AIDS if you get a blood transfusion.