WHO is not a standalone body - countries such as the UK and US sit on WHO committees and are part of its decision-making
I think this FT article highlights how the WHO has failed and underscores how they were pressured by Chinese officials.
Here it is: www.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644a-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68
Interesting tidbits:
Taiwan said its doctors had heard from mainland colleagues that medical staff were getting ill — a sign of human-to-human transmission. Taipei officials said they reported this to both International Health Regulations (IHR), a WHO framework for exchange of epidemic prevention and response data between 196 countries, and Chinese health authorities on December 31
Taiwanese government officials told the Financial Times the warning was not shared with other countries
China’s health ministry only confirmed human-to-human transmission on January 20, after the WHO said in mid-January there might be “limited” human-to-human transmission but stepped back from this view on the same day
The challenge of managing the relationship extended to negotiations over the wording of a report following a joint mission to China last month. The nine-day trip comprised 12 WHO experts and 13 Chinese officials and was focused on the country’s response to the outbreak. Three of the WHO officials also visited Wuhan, the centre of the outbreak, as part of the mission. The WHO’s Bruce Aylward, the Canadian epidemiologist who led the team, described the process as “fantastic”. But he told the FT there was “huge back and forth” with Chinese officials about what went into the report
Dr Aylward said Chinese health officials did not want to refer to the pathogen as “dangerous” as they regarded such terminology as reserved for diseases with higher mortality rates
Clifford Lane, clinical director of America’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who was one of two US officials on the mission, said the WHO team’s Chinese members had “a great desire to be precise”. He said the debates over wording did not amount to censorship but represented a “bit of spin”