Forecasting for the Optimal Numbers of COVID-19 Infection to Maintain Economic Circular Flows of Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper targets to forecast the optimal number of confirmed COVID cases that helps the economy to flow. Though the topic looks interesting but there are several flaws highlighted as follows:

The abstract needs to be rewritten to provide the insightful information about the paper. Moreover, COVID-19 and Covid-19 must be written in uniform manner. Probably COVID-19 is more generally use and acceptable.

Introduction

I think the introduction could have written in more precise and coherent way. There are several sentences where lack of coherence is observed like from line 24 – 28. Also, the meaning of many lines is not clear, see for instance; line 22 (“In Thailand, it has been………....as well”), line 33 (“After a while, Thailand………… entertainment venues….”), and line 55 (“shows the cumulative total…….to date”).

Furthermore, the authors are unable to maintain the uniformity in their write up by using mixture of capital and small letters. For instance, COVID-19 or Covid-19, ‘Suvarnabhumi Airport’, ‘Shows (line 52 and 55)’, ‘Province’, and ‘Ministry of public health’. There is serious need to proofread the paper to make the write up coherent and grammatically correct. The authors referred COVID-19 as “epidemic” (line 58), which is technically incorrect.

Importantly, I think the paper could benefit a lot from a better explanation of why such a study is necessary, given the fact that, the authors mentioned “the researchers intend to find….” but they failed to provide a valid reason why this study is important and how it can enrich the literature. In short, research question/study objective, significance, and implication are not visible in introduction part.

Literature

Issue of coherence and clarity of write up persist, even the first line of literature review is not clear.

Literature review part must provide a strong base to support the study objective. Review of literature on given topic is not sufficient. The authors only referred considerable old studies with exception of ‘Zhang J. et al., 2020; Nakhli S R. et al., 2021’. However, it is recommended add literature related to COVID-19 and economic cycle where DSGE model have been used (some of the recent studies are given below). Some of the latest studies could have been used in literature. Also, mention what alternative models other than DSGE have been used in literature. It is recommended to provide insights about current global pandemic and its connection with economic indicators in Thailand or any other country with relevant study.

Can, U., Can, Z. G., Bocuoglu, M. E., & Dogru, M. E. (2021). The effectiveness of the post-Covid-19 recovery policies: Evidence from a simulated DSGE model for Turkey. Economic Analysis and Policy, 71, 694-708.

Hürtgen, P. (2021). Fiscal space in the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Economics, 1-16.

Boscá, J. E., Doménech, R., Ferri, J., García, J. R., & Ulloa, C. (2021). The stabilizing effects of economic policies in Spain in times of COVID-19. Applied Economic Analysis.

Warwick, M., & Fernando R., 2020. ‘Global Macroeconomic Scenarios of the Covid-19 Pandemic’. CAMA Working Paper 62/2020, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Australian National University, Canberra

Methodology:

The authors tried to provide detailed information about the DSGE model. However, the over burdening the mathematical equations is making the methodology section unclear and it requires the precise and clear specification. Also, it is highly recommended to provide the model specification based on few pioneer studies on Bayesian DSGE model, such as An and Schorfheide (2007), Kim and Pagan (1995) and the book by Canova (2007); the studies discussed the basics and model specification on classical and Bayesian approaches.

Concerning to dataset, how could it be possible to get the data on COVID-19 from 2000 to 2021 (from line 353 to 354)

Discussion:

In depth discussion on results should be provided rather than just pointing out the results. Also, there is a lack of implication in the discussion section. The study could provide greater values if the results are discussed deeply with impactful implication.  Apart from that, there is a lack of coherence in the sentence structures and mixture of capital and small letters as well (e.g., see line 405 and 408).

Conclusion.

Conclusion section replicates the results which have already been discussed in previous section. Ideally, conclusion part should provide a summary of the paper starting from the objective of the study following key findings, limitations, and future direction. Research implication, Limitation and future directions for research were missing. It should also be enhanced with a review of the literature adequate to the subject and a broader interpretation and commentary of the research results

 

Although the paper is on emerging topic related to COVID-19, but study requires lot more rooms for improvement. For now, I cannot recommend this paper for publication in Economies

I hope the comments mentioned about will help you to improve your research work. I wish you best of luck for future.

 

 

 

 

References:

Canova, F. (2007). Methods for Applied Macroeconomic Research. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kim, K., Pagan, A. (1995). Econometric analysis of calibrated macroeconomic models. In: Pesaran, H., Wickens, M., eds. Handbook of Applied Econometrics: Macroeconomics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 356–390.

Sungbae An & Frank Schorfheide (2007) Bayesian Analysis of DSGE Models, Econometric Reviews, 26:2-4, 113-172, DOI: 10.1080/07474930701220071

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A very interesting paper, well developed with an appropriate methodology and justified with literature from current authors. However, it would be interesting in the conclusion section to say what have been the main contributions of this article to the current literature and possible lines of research.

Herewith are some more specific considerations that should be made:

In the introduction section (line 77), the research explains that DSGE models have been used with Bayesian approaches. However, it has been shown in previous literature that this approach is often flawed for precision estimation. It would therefore be necessary for the authors explain why they have chosen this approach and the advantages it offers for estimating their results.

The literature review is short, and does not detail the different modelling approaches that previous authors have employed. For this, the following article may be of assistance:

Alaminos, D., León-Gómez, A., & Sánchez-Serrano, J. R. (2020). A DSGE-VAR Analysis for Tourism Development and Sustainable Economic Growth. Sustainability, 12(9), 3635.   With regard to the methodology, section 3.2. Dataset mentions that the time period for which the study has been carried out is 2000-2021. However, it would be necessary to justify why 2000 is taken as the starting year, as it is analysing forecasting for the optimal numbers of COVID-19. According to WHO, the current outbreak of coronavirus disease was first reported in Wuhan on 31 December 2019.   Finally, section 3.1.2 Two monetary DSGE Models (line 168) refers to the model being composed of the household, a firm, and a financial, but do not explain why. Has it been based on any previous study?

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of paper entitled "Forecasting for the optimal numbers of COVID-19 infection to Non-stop the ecnomic circular flows of Thailand" try to find the answer to the question that most of the world's economies face to: "Which number of COVID-19 cases coud still keep the country's economy circulating? So it is more than interesting paper.

I particulary appreciate the Methodology  section and the valuable models elaborated by the authors, but I have also some critical comments:

• The paper is not pretty well-ballanced - Literature Rewiev section should be improved, including some of this papers:
  • Ng, W.L. (2020), To lockdowwn? When to peak? Will there be an end? A macroeconomic analyses on COVID-19 epidemic in the United States. Journal of Macroeconomics, 65, doi 10.1016/j.jmacro.2020.103230
    
  • Alvarez, F.E., Argente D. and F. Lippi, 2020. A simple planning Problem for COVID-19 Lockdown.  NBER Working Paper No. w26981, doi 10.3386/w26981 
  • Gonzales-Eiras, M. and D. Niepelt, 2020. On the optimal ‘lockdown’ during an epidemic. CESifo Working Paper No. 8240. CESifo.
  • Maliszewska, M., Mattoo, A. and D. Mensbruhgghe, 2020. The Potentiala Impact of the Covid-19 on GDP and Trade. Policy Research Working Paper, WP9211.
    
• Macroeconomic data in section 3.2 should be described better.
• Conclusion and and especially policy recommendations are very weak and general (The whole world hopes for the effectiveness of vaccination).  And it is real to limit daily number of new infection to 3000 cases per month in country with almost 70 million inhabitants? Or it is just a number from the model?
• please try to improve the discussion on the results of the model and their real application to the Thai economy.
  
• In discussion or conclusion try to consider extending the model with an indicator of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 to the future

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper seems to be greatly improved compared to the previous versions. The suggested improvements have been incorporated in the manuscript. However, it requires few changes before it can be considered for publication.

The first three lines of abstract still need revision as they provide contradictory information about your work. Please look and confirm which one is correct among “response of real GDP on number of cases” and “number of cases that can influence in circulating the economy”, both have contradictory meanings.

In literature, English write-up still be improved. 

The discussion part is missing as the authors only provided the empirical results. The manuscript could benefit more to scientific value of manuscript if provided with detailed discussion on results.

I wish the best of luck to author for improvements.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for incorporating the comments.

It would be great and it is common to have some text between pictures and tables (Figure 4 and 5, figures 6 and 7, figures and tables in chapter 4).

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx