Sourced or unsourced?
It's carefully written, I thought it looked credible - if it isn't there should be a blemish and someone can point out why this person doesn't work in a Surrey hospital.
Yah, the NYT articles about Saddam importing yellowcake uranium from Niger were "carefully written", and apparently "looked credible" to a lot of credulous people.
If there is no obvious blemish, one has to wonder why someone would spend a couple of hours composing and writing it.
How about this for an "obvious blemish":
I have heard staff express amazement that despite warnings on packets and at point of sales, telling people masks are totally ineffective and dangerous, the public still buy them, because a politician has told them too.
What "warnings" on what "packets" tell people "masks are totally ineffective"? "Politicians" did not tell people to wear masks until very late in the day, and are only recommending them now because their denials are crashing into the overwhelming evidence of their effectiveness and scientific studies that establish this. The leading medical journal in the country has spoken of the "large reduction in risk of infection" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362031142-9/fulltext
one has to wonder why someone would spend a couple of hours composing and writing it.
No walter, you have to wonder. I don't wonder at all. You need to go back to journalism 101. If this kind of story sparks your interest and sounds credible, you go looking for a source. Publishing it without one and lending it implicit credibility because it "looks" true or confirms your own bias is the opposite of journalism.