The Monetary Value of Human Life Losses Associated with COVID-19 in Africa: A Human Capital Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease refer to the attached document for my comments and suggestions. I believe the paper has strong upside potential, but it requires that the authors incorporate all my comments in a revised version.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study is of great significance， b has the following problems.
1.In the section of Background, Please refer to the relevant literature and other continents' research on COVID-19, and describe the importance of this research.
2.In the section of Methods, What are the differences between this study and other studies, what methods were used in other studies, and what are the advantages of this study compared to other methods?
3.In the section of conlusion, the conclusion is an abstraction of the results, a qualitative conclusion, not a quantitative data. Generally, there should be no references. Suggest the author to make revisions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis study is of great significance, but the study has the following problems.
1.In the section of Background, Please refer to the relevant literature and other continents' research on COVID-19, such as Europe, and describe the importance of this research.
2.In the section of Discussion, What are the differences between this study and other studies, what methods were used in other studies, and what are the advantages of this study compared to other methods?
3.In the section of conlusion, the conclusion is an abstraction of the results, a qualitative conclusion, not a quantitative data. Generally, there should be no references， the author of this article has cited other authors. Suggest the author to make revisions.
Author Response
attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, I quite like this manuscript. I have suggestions for a few revisions that are fairly minor (IE formatting) but will improve readability, and a few suggestions that may require slightly more effort from the authors.
In terms of minor issues, there are a few instances where large amounts of numerical data would be better presented in tabular form (as one example, the age ranges and their proportion of the population, as well as the countries the South African data is applied to and Tunisian data.) As currently constructed, it is an overwhelming blob of text but would be much easier to read if formatted in separate tables.
Similarly, the paragraph where the authors discuss Step 4 (around line 246) is fairly impenetrable.
Same with step 6.
Finally, in terms of bigger or more substantive issues/suggestions, I agree with the authors that their estimates likely represent an undercount of costs, predominantly due to undercounts of reported COVID deaths. I think there are some estimates out there, though, of how far off the government reported numbers may be. I would like to see the authors make some attempt to estimate their models with alternative estimates.
Relatedly, different vaccines have different success rates, and different expense levels. There was a large international push to make the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines available to a number of countries in Africa. If that push had been more successful, how much would the cost savings have changed?
I don't think that last question is absolutely necessary, but I do think it would speak more to the necessity of international health collaboration and infrastructural investment. The authors could also tie their arguments in to related literatures about public vs private goods, the harmful consequences of austerity/IMF programs, and related losses of economic activity like foreign direct investment, etc. This would increase the article's potential reach.
Author Response
attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have successfully addressed all my comments and concerns. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Reviewer Comment #1: The authors have successfully addressed all my comments and concerns. I have no further comments.
Author's Response: No further revisions required by Reviewer 1. We thank Reviewer 1 for the first round of comments and suggestions that we used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We are pleased that Reviewer 1 is satisfied that we have adequately addressed all the Round 1 comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter the author's revisions, the quality of the paper has improved to a certain extent. It is recommended that the author refine the whole paper and shorten the length of the paper.
Author Response
Reviewer Comment #2: After the author's revisions, the quality of the paper has improved to a certain extent. It is recommended that the author refine the whole paper and shorten the length of the paper.
Author's Response:
We are grateful to Reviewer #2 for the specific comments in Round 1 that we used to improve the quality of our paper, as noted in his/her comment above. In the Round 2 review, Reviewer #2 recommends refining the entire paper. We have gone through the entire paper and made some refinements tracked in MS Word track mode.
The second recommendation from Reviewer #2 is to shorten the paper's length. We sincerely appeal to the Reviewer #2 and the Section Editor to kindly allow us to retain the current length of the paper due to following reasons. First, our paper presents evidence on all 54 sovereign countries of the African continent. Second, 11 pages of the paper consists of the three study objectives methodologies (Model, Data and data sources, Data Analysis) for Valuation of Human Life (section 2.3); Conceptual Framework for Estimating the Cost of COVID-19 in Africa, including Total Indirect Cost Algorithm, Total Direct Cost Algorithm, and Intangible Cost Algorithm (section 2.4); and Estimation of the Potential Savings Assuming 100% Vaccine Target Population Coverage (section 2.5). Each of the subsection includes minimal methodological detail to enable other researchers to replicate our study. Therefore, we firmly believe that any attempt to cut down the methodology would compromise the extent to which other researchers can replicate the analysis. Third, the paper includes a total of 10 Tables (two of which were added at the recommendation of Reviewer #3 in Round 1) and 10 Figures, occupying approximately 20 pages. We feel that, given the scope of the three study objectives, it is essential to retain all the current Tables and Figures that report results. Fourth, the References and Declarations (Data Availability Statement, Author Contributions, Ethical Approval, Funding, Conflicts of Interest, Acknowledgements) occupy five pages. As advised by the Editorial Team, we thoroughly reviewed the citations included in the manuscript and deleted 28.
We take this opportunity to thank the Editorial Team and the three anonymous peer reviewers for the time you spent reading our paper and for the constructive suggestions, which we have used to improve the quality of our paper.
