Live tutoring calls did not improve learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sierra Leone.

Education systems regularly face unexpected school closures, whether due to disease outbreaks, natural disasters, or other adverse shocks. In low-income countries where internet access is scarce, distance learning - the most common educational solution - is often passive, via TV or radio, with little opportunity for teacher-student interaction. In this paper we evaluate the effectiveness of live tutoring calls from teachers, designed to supplement radio instruction during the 2020 school closures prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We do this with a randomised controlled trial with 4,399 primary school students in Sierra Leone. Tutoring calls led to some limited increase in educational activity, but had no effect on mathematics or language test scores, whether for girls or boys, and whether provided by public or private school teachers. Even having received tutoring calls, one in three children reported not listening to educational radio at all, so limited take-up may partly explain our results.

The macroeconomics of pandemics around the world: Lives versus livelihoods revisited☆

The COVID-19 pandemic led governments around the world to impose unprecedented restrictions on economic activity. Were these restrictions equally justified in poorer countries with fewer demographic risk factors and less ability to weather economic shocks? We develop and estimate a fully specified model of the macroeconomy with epidemiological dynamics, incorporating subsistence constraints in consumption and allowing preferences over "lives versus livelihoods” to vary with income. Poorer countries' demography pushes them unambiguously toward laxer policies. But because both infected and susceptible agents near the subsistence constraint will remain economically active in the face of infection risk and even to some extent under government containment policies, optimal policy in poorer countries pushes in the opposite direction. Moreover, for reasonable income-elasticities of the value of a statistical life, the model can fully rationalize equally strict or stricter policies in poorer countries.

IMF's Growth Forecasts for Poor Countries Don't Match Its COVID Narrative

From the Abstract: The International Monetary Fund's forecasts of GDP [gross domestic product] growth in 2020 suggest a substantially muted impact of the COVID [coronavirus disease 2019] crisis--about 3 percentage points smaller--for developing countries compared to advanced economies. Simple cross-country regressions show this discrepancy cannot be explained by external vulnerabilities to trade disruptions, financial crises, or commodity price shocks, which mostly suggest a more severe crisis in the developing world. It also cannot be explained by the domestic shock, because--while current case totals are greater in advanced economies--the policy responses of social distancing and lockdowns which will directly constrain economic activity have been similar across both groups of countries, and fiscal policy responses have been significantly weaker in developing countries. We hope that the relative optimism will not induce complacency and elicit a less-than-forceful response by countries themselves nor legitimize an ungenerous, conditionality-addled response on the part of the international community in the face of an unprecedented calamity.COVID-19 (Disease);Developing countries;Financial crises

Predicted COVID-19 fatality rates based on age, sex, comorbidities and health system capacity.

Early reports suggest the fatality rate from COVID-19 varies greatly across countries, but non-random testing and incomplete vital registration systems render it impossible to directly estimate the infection fatality rate (IFR) in many low- and middle-income countries. To fill this gap, we estimate the adjustments required to extrapolate estimates of the IFR from high-income to lower-income regions. Accounting for differences in the distribution of age, sex and relevant comorbidities yields substantial differences in the predicted IFR across 21 world regions, ranging from 0.11% in Western Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.07% for high-income Asia Pacific. However, these predictions must be treated as lower bounds in low- and middle-income countries as they are grounded in fatality rates from countries with advanced health systems. To adjust for health system capacity, we incorporate regional differences in the relative odds of infection fatality from childhood respiratory syncytial virus. This adjustment greatly diminishes but does not entirely erase the demography-based advantage predicted in the lowest income settings, with regional estimates of the predicted COVID-19 IFR ranging from 0.37% in Western Sub-Saharan Africa to 1.45% for Eastern Europe.