That it's still better than the no-worldwide coordination body alternative? An optimal but impossible-to-implement world organization isn't a useful measuring

That it's still better than the no-worldwide coordination body alternative? An optimal but impossible-to-implement world organization isn't a useful measuring stick for organizations that need exist in reality. Nations exercise sovereignty within their borders. Nations have their own priorities. Those priorities often conflict with other nations'. Inconvenient in public health responses, but facts that must be dealt with. And in a choice between (1) no WHO, (2) a WHO that spends time playing politics and is less effective than it could be, (3) a perfectly-efficient authoritarian WHO supported by a global police state... I'll take (2).