WHEN the World Health Organisation would speak it was all too convenient to believe they were talking of other people’s problems in far-off corners of the globe … until last March, that is, when they directed their message at us.

And so on March 11 when WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told us that “Covid-19 can be characterised as a pandemic” and that “we’re in this together, to do the right things with calm and protect the citizens of the world. It’s doable”, our priorities were more mundane.

And we were more put out that the Wales v Scotland rugby match might be, as it had to be, called off.

The pronouncements and the latest developments on Covid-19 from the WHO are now part of our regular diet of information, as we pin our hopes on the UN organisation and our own leaders to plot an exit strategy from this crisis.

Now that a 13-strong team of WHO scientists are being deployed for Wuhan to investigate the circumstances of the outbreak of the coronavirus, the world will again be scrutinising the agency just as much as it will be watching Wuhan.

The WHO has been accused of going soft on China from the outset, with Ghebreyesus praising China’s response and saying Beijing had “helped prevent spread the coronavirus to other countries”.

The virus was identified and reported to the WHO at the end of December 2019, but China only moved to stop all travel in and out of Wuhan on January 23, after millions had already left the province.

Professor John Mackenzie, a member of the WHO’s emergency committee, has suggested that the virus may even have been transmitted as early as November 2019.

“There was a period there I think, had they been a bit stronger earlier on, they might have been able to restrict the number of cases not only in China but also overseas,” he said.

In January, Wuhan mayor Zhou Xianwang admitted that information about the coronavirus was not disclosed in “a timely manner” in the early stages of the outbreak.

The WHO’s detractors have been quick to point the finger at China over the problems its team has had in the Far East in starting its investigation.

The 13 scientists, who will be quarantined for two weeks before starting their work, were met by Chinese officials in protective suits after arriving from Singapore.

But two others were denied entry after testing positive for Covid-19 antibodies in Singapore – despite the fact that the entire team tested negative for a current infection using the gold-standard PCR test.

This comes on top of the WHO team’s initial attempts to enter the country, which stalled when some members of the team were turned back because of visa problems.

The scope of the WHO investigation is also being questioned, with the team expected to look into wet market practices in Wuhan while doubts persist over whether it will look into its laboratories amid American accusations that the coronavirus emanated there.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology built an archive of genetic information about bat coronaviruses after the early-2000s Sars outbreak.

A “scientific audit” of institute records and safety measures would be a “routine activity”, said Edinburgh University epidemiologist Mark Woodhouse.

Hung Nguyen, a Vietnamese biologist on the WHO team in Wuhan and expert in wet markets, insists though that their investigations will be in no way limited.

He said the team planned to spend two weeks interviewing people from research institutes, hospitals and the market linked to the early cases.

He added: “My understanding is in fact there is no limit in accessing information we might need for the team.”

THE WHO’s authority, though, has taken a hit internationally this past year, diminished by attacks on its integrity by outgoing US president Donald Trump and by Chinese procrastination and obfuscation.

It is also being judged on what was perceived as an overreaction to swine flu in 2009, which had a death toll of 18,500 worldwide.

Clare Wenham, a professor of global health policy at the London School of Economics, said: “Suddenly you have people saying: ‘Wait a minute, you really cried wolf on this.’”

On Ebola they were criticised for being slow to react as that virus claimed 11,310 lives, the majority across just three African countries.

The WHO was set up by the UN after the Second World War and built a reputation for strong and early pronouncements and bringing the international community together.

Its elimination of smallpox and curtailment of Sars set the bar for what it can achieve but its own internal politics and superpowers flexing their muscles throughout this decade is increasingly putting its work in jeopardy.

“The WHO is always at risk of being criticised as doing too much or too little,” said former WHO assistant director-general Keiji Fukuda.