This is an interesting train of thought- should WHO be dismantled and replaced by an organisation that has a broader mandate? Or should the nation-states dictate the health policies as they deem appropriate?
There are no easy answers. It is chaotic during pandemics and a number of voices may deem that course correction needs to be done accordingly. However, critical communication lines and a commonality of purpose should dictate the policies. It cannot be achieved overnight and requires complex diplomatic persuasions. The overwhelming rhetoric is that countries seek funds to “bolster their healthcare”; those funds don’t automatically flow like a tap.
The WHO did not declare a “public health emergency of international concern” until January 30, after the outbreak had spread to 19 countries and the count of known infections had passed 8,000 people. And it didn’t declare a pandemic until March 11, which critics contend was far too late.That leaves two choices. We can conclude, as Trump has, that multilateral organizations like the WHO are inadequate to a severe crisis, so we must revert to an international order where nation-states are the only significant powers. Or we can accept that in a globalized world we need strong global institutions.The WHO isn’t perfect, but it needs more money and power, not less | MIT Technology Review
It would be impossible to assess the global healthcare challenges addressed by WHO but as a starting point to mull over. WHO can only stress upon screening and pass “guidelines” but those are not binding on the signatories.