Modelling and Prediction of the Spread of COVID-19 in Cameroon and Assessing the Governmental Measures (March–September 2020)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

I enjoyed reviewing the manuscript of “Modelling the Spread of COVID-19 in Cameroon, and assesing the governmental measures (March-september 2020)”.

The authors started with the importance of model prediction of the COVID-19 pandemic and the reviews of the COVID-19 related modeling research. In general, this paper provided useful information about the application of mathematical model to predict the COVID-19 pandemic and the influences of relative factors. The model discussed in this model could help to develop effective control strategies for new and emerging infectious diseases.

I recommend the manuscript for publication after minor revisions. Below are some detailed comments and suggestions.

1. Please add the line number, for detailed revision, this could help a lot.
2. The sequence of references is not well arranged. It was beginning with [7], then [12]. If possible, please rearrange carefully.
3. In abstract: “Indeed, we predicted 4500 positive cases at the end of May under the initial conditions of Phase 1 On 22 May, we had in fact 4400 positive cases.”

There should be a period “.” between “Phase 1” and “On 22 May”.

4. In Introduction,

For the second paragraph: please consider rearranging this paragraph into

1. 1. Introduction to COVID-19, with the full name, and the R0, etc.
   2. World wide infection and death due to COVID-19
   3. Related research on COVID 19, etc

Also, the author might consider to delete sentences like “Some models are used to estimate the transmissivity and mortality of COVID-19 [30,31]. Some papers assessed governmental strategies as isolation of cases and contacts and quarantine [2, 9]. Some of them covered the prediction of the peak [13,14,22].” Since the detail example research has been discussed in detail.

For the third paragraph:

Please delete “??” in line 2, as well as some of the parentheses “()” . Also, the language of this paragraph needs to be improved. Since the name of the parameters used in this model will be introduced in detail at section 3, the author might consider to delete this part in intro and made a short description on it.

For the fourth paragraph:

Please consider deleting “2020 the world has reported 305.275 con_rmed cases. 4825 dead and 53.578 con_rmed cases in Italy”. The fast spread of COVID-19 should be illustrated in previous paragraph 2, better not be here.

5. In section 2:

Please uniform the “Figure 1”, “Figure 2” and “Figure 3”, make sure the paper has the constant capital usage for the Figures, and please do not forget “Figure” word. So as the following figures. Since the model later was labeled as 3.1 and 3.2, I’d like to in person suggested to rename as Figure 2.1, 2.2... etc.

For Figure 1 and 2, please use the same y axis, either “1k, 2k” or “1000, 2000”

For Figure 4, please make sure to sequence the figures and tables separately, as “Figure 4” and “Table 1”, with the independent titles for both of them. So as the later tables. Same as Figure 19, it should be a table!

6. In section 3:

In table 1, please have a short discussion on how those parameters (e.g., λ and β) were estimated or assumed, is there any reason for those numbers to be selected?

7. In section 4:

Please make sure to have the labels for all the equations

8. In section 5:

Please replot Figure 6 and make sure do not show data labels like “X:11, Y:246”. If you want to emphasize this point, please list in the title of the figure or discuss the major content. Also, please do not have the labels to cover the model prediction line and the real data points. This figure is bad.

Same as following Figures like Figure 8, 10, and 15.

Please make sure Figure 7 at the center. Same as Figures 18 and 20.

9. In section 6

Please make sure is it 3 or 4 major period? The paper claim 3 key periods but listed 4 phases in total

The phase 1, this sentence needs to be rewritten: “see see Annexe A 11 section ?? decreed by the Cameroonian government were in full effect.”

Many mistakes like this have been found, major language check required for this paper. The use of capital like for the Figure, March, and September need to be careful. So as “R0”, “R₀” vs “Ro”, I cannot figure them all one by one, please recheck the language and writing style.

10. In section 7

For Figures 9 to 18, the legend is too small to read, please adjust the size of the letters.

11. In section 9

If there is no “9.2”, there is no reason for the subtitle “9.1”. Also, please number for titles like “10.1”, “10.2” etc.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The manuscript has been improved based on your comments and suggestions

Please find attached the revised version

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well designed study highlighting the impact of successive measures on the spread of Codiv-19 in Cameroon during the period of March to June and showing some projections. 

I have few minor comments:

• The authors should pay more attention to the quality of figures such as Figure 1
• Increasing the number dpi could improve the quality of figures.
• The authors should avoid text in color
• The Table 1 is not well presented
• The authors should pay more attention to the quality of <<Tables and figures. It's like that this manuscript was prepared rapidly without a final check by the authors
• In the Introduction: change to june by to June
• universities and mass screaning on 1st june . June not june. and add a point after 1st June. The objective
• screaning: I think it's screening
• I suggest to authors reading carefully the manuscript to avoid presenting an article with full of mistakes

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The manuscript has been improved based on your comments and suggestions

please find attached the revised version

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is not suitable in its current form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

The manuscript has been improved based on your comments

please find attached the revised version

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for your response and improvement, no more comments on the technical aspect. Nice work with clear writing, this work would be helpful as an example of modeling work to develop an effective control strategy for emerging infectious diseases.

The author may still need minor revisions to improve the quality of the presentation, below are some detailed comments and suggestions:

1. Be careful with your writing and indentation. Make sure the first line of each paragraph to be consistent. E.g. for the introduction part, lines 49, 142 did not have an indentation, but lines 104 and 128 have an indentation.
2. Also, please pay more attention to your figures, below are some more details:
   1. Figures 1, 2, and 3, the edges need to be consistent: either for all the figures have the boundary line at all edges or no edge line. Also, Figures 1 and 2 must be improved.
   2. Figure 5 is a table!
   3. Figure 9, please remove the title on the top. Same for figure 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
   4. More detailed discussion and comments are required for figures in section 7. Please do not only put the text in the figure, more illustration and discussion are needed for all the figures, and please put them in text after the title.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer ,

Thank you for your remarks and suggestions

1- Indention has benn corrected

2 

a figures 1, 2 and 3  have been simply  remooved and some comments are done with references.

b - figure 5 has been transformed in table

c- thoses figures have been corrected based on your suggestions

d- comments below figures have been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I don't see any point in publishing this copy paste work. This paper should be rejected on the basis of serious flaws at the editorial level.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your remarks

regards