PONE-D-20-28007

Lockdown, relaxation, and ACME period in COVID-19: A study of disease dynamics in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Figueroa-Preciado,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Laurent Pujo-Menjouet

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

following the reviewers suggestions, I am pleased to accept

your manuscript after answering the minor concerns.

Best,

Laurent Pujo-Menjouet

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, the authors studied COVID-19 in Hermosillo, Mexico by using a mathematical model. The model is well-constructed and, in particular, it takes into account the effect of intervention measures by using functions w1 and w2, which represent the transition rates from susceptible to protected and protected to released, respectively. The Monte Carlo study was performed by using parameter sets based on three different scenarios, and estimation results were obtained. Based on these results, the authors discussed the effects of lockdown and lifting mitigation measures. The paper is totally very well-written and I recommend this paper for publication. The mathematical model in this paper would help the readers to evaluate situations that did not happen in reality.

Minor issues

1. Should the authors explain the meaning of the abbreviation ACME?

2. Should the authors estimate the (basic or effective) reproduction numbers?

Reviewer #2: In this article, the authors develop a Kermack-McKendrick-type mathematical model in order to evaluate the confinement and relaxation measures implemented at Hermosillo (Sonora, Mexico). The phenomenon studied is of great interest and topicality, the model chosen is fairly standard, however some points deserve to be explained, such as the choice of different distributions, and also the details of the calculations.

- The introduction requires some references dealing with the mathematical and statistical study of this type of models.

- The model is quite simple, the choice of $\\omega_{0i}$ must be justified, remark 1 is not sufficient.

- The choice of different distributions in a single scenario is to be justified.

- The detailed calculation for each step is necessary to validate the results obtained.

- In the initial conditions of the model, the authors say that the first case of COVID-19 recorded in Hermosillo by the Sonoran Health System, occurred on March 16, 2020 (line 128), and they consider March 11 as the start date of simulations, with the following initial condition: $I_S(0)=1$? Where does this value come from (quote a reference)?

- At line 140, the authors assume that the first period of social distancing is $[T_{L1},T_{U1}]=[5,35]$ and the second period is $[T_{L2},T_{U2}]=[50,65]$, but between $T_{U1}=35$ and $T_{L2}=50$ there is no information, we need details for this period.

- In the section model parameter distributions, the authors established three different scenarios where different probability distributions were taken into account for the modeling parameters included in the mathematical model. How the authors choose the different probability distributions, I would recommend explaining their choice of distributions for the selected parameters in order to understand this part.

- In line 161 (respectively 169), the distributions for the parameters $\\ omega_{10}$ and $\\omega_{20}$ considered in scenario 3 (respectively scenario 1): $U(0.7,0.9)$ and $U(0.1,0.35)$ (respectively $U(0.05,0.2)$), are not the same as those cited in table 2, why? also in the title of table 2, for a normal and uniform distribution, the parameters $a$ and $b$ are used, can you specify if the same parameters are used for both distributions or not.

- The general organization of the paper seems rather chaotic. In section 2 (respectively 3), the authors present the model (respectively some results), but to understand what the diagram compartment is (respectively what is the basis of these results), the reader must go to the end of the article to see the numbers. I highly recommend rearranging the paper in the usual style: each figure should be placed right after its discussion paragraph.

In conclusion, in the given form I cannot recommend the given manuscript for publication. In my opinion, a complete revision of the presentation of the content is needed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_b3a37.pdf

Lockdown, relaxation, and acme period in COVID-19: A study of disease dynamics in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

PONE-D-20-28007R1

Dear Dr. Figueroa-Preciado,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Laurent Pujo-Menjouet

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear colleagues,

following the reviewers decision,

I am pleased to suggest to accept the paper.

Best regards,

Laurent

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: In this article, the authors develop a Kermack-McKendrick-type mathematical model in order to evaluate the confinement and relaxation measures implemented at Hermosillo (Sonora, Mexico). The phenomenon studied is of great interest and topicality.

In conclusion, I recommend the given manuscript for publication in journal PLOS ONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No