This is a stretch. Lookup timelines of China's handling of this issue. For instance from https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/chinas-devas.... Human to human transmission was observed in the second week of December and the WHO continued denying this was the case in mid-January.
Look at the WHO's tweet from January 14th - https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 - "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China". That's not them lacking evidence to conclude on it, that's them irresponsibly parroting Beijing propaganda.
That's exactly why Taiwan has also been criticizing the WHO - see https://www.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644a-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6.... "Health officials in Taipei said they alerted the WHO at the end of December about the risk of human-to-human transmission of the new virus but said its concerns were not passed on to other countries."
Incorrect. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-09/coronavir...
"The coronavirus may be “reactivating” in people who have been cured of the illness, according to Korea’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 51 patients classed as having been cured in South Korea have tested positive again, the CDC said in a briefing on Monday. Rather than being infected again, the virus may have been reactivated in these people, given they tested positive again shortly after being released from quarantine, said Jeong Eun-kyeong, director-general of the Korean CDC."
> The WHO lied about human-to-human transmission
No, the WHO correctly noted at the time that they didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude it was occurring. (China may have been concealing it, certainly.)
> They lied about the effectiveness of travel restrictions
They were likely correct, given recent analysis showing it quietly spreading in NYC back in January.
> They were wrong about airborne transmission
No, you're wrong about what "airborne" versus "droplet" transmission means in epidemiology.
> They lied about the effectiveness of masks
Now this, I can agree with, and if you look at my submission/posting history you'll see plenty of criticism of that approach. It seems likely to have been intended to preserve supplies for healthcare workers, but it backfired.
> limited sources that have a bad track record
This perfectly describes The Federalist.