CHARTING OUT THE PROGRESSION THE

COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN THE PHILIPPINES

A Research Paper
Submitted to
Nerissa A. Resente, PhD

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirement for the Subject
Quantitative Techniques in Decision Making

By
Jean D. Dela Cruz, RRT (MMHoA)
Anna Lorraine M. Suner, RN (MMHA)
Dr. Victor S. Suner, PhD (MMHoA)
 June 2020
ABSTRACT

Background

During the current pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was

first diagnosed in the Philippines at the end of January. This major health

threat has severely affected all other aspects of life such as education, politics,

public security, and economy. This pandemic elicited unprecedented

challenges to the Philippine government. At the time of writing, the latest

COVID-19 case report in the Philippines, forecasts and the Governments’

response in controlling the spread of the disease will be presented.

Method

The study mainly used the data from the Department of Health (DOH)

COVID-19 Case Tracker, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Our World

in Data. The rationale for choosing these platforms is because of the emerging

nature of the data and the availability of the data. The study does not follow

any systematic data collection process, thus, the data may be incomplete and

biased. To mitigate such problems, the authors opted to use reliable data from

the DOH, WHO and Our World in Data.

Result:
 This study produced forecasts of the confirmed cases, recoveries and

death due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. In addition, forecasts

for highly affected Regions were also produced.

Conclusion:

Producing accurate and actionable forecasts of the disease will help

improve public health response, facilitate targeted intervention and prevention

strategies, such as increased healthcare staffing and generate valuable

knowledge for the Local Government Units (LGUs) to plan further for their

communities.
 INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that cause diseases in

mammals and birds. The first coronavirus was first discovered in the 1930s

and since then, these viruses cause respiratory tract infections that range from

mild to lethal. This includes common cold to more severe diseases such as

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory

Syndrome (SARS). The most recently discovered coronavirus disease is the

Coronavirus disease 2019 or the COVID-19.

The recent outbreak was first identified on 31 December 2019 in Wuhan,

the capital of China’s Hubei province. Since then, it has spread globally, and

the WHO declared this outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International

Concern on 30 January 2020. As of 14 June 2020, a total of 7,875,929 COVID-

19 cases found and 432,519 people have died, of which, a total of 25,392

COVID-19 cases found and 1074 people have died in the Philippines.

During the current pandemic, the first coronavirus disease in the

Philippines was diagnosed at the end of January. This major health threat has

severely affected all other aspects of life such as education, politics, public

security, and economy. This pandemic elicited unprecedented challenges to the

Philippine government. Accurate and actionable forecasts of the disease will

help improve public health response and can facilitate targeted intervention

and prevention strategies, such as increased healthcare staffing. The COVID-

19 spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose

when an infected person coughs or sneezes. There are no specific vaccines or

treatments for COVID-19 at this time, however, there are many ongoing clinical

trials evaluating potential treatments.

Statement of the Problem

The aim of this study is to present the of COVID-19 case report in the

Philippines and to produce forecast values of individuals infected by the

disease.
Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the number COVID-19 cases

among various Regions in the Philippines.

There is no significant difference between the confirmed COVID-19 cases

in the Philippines considering the individuals gender and age.

There is no significant difference between the confirmed deaths due to

COVID-19 in the Philippines considering the individuals gender and age.

Significance of the Study

Documenting the COVID-19 cases in the Philippines together and

producing accurate and actionable forecasts of the disease will help improve

public health response, facilitate targeted intervention and prevention

strategies, such as increased healthcare staffing and generate valuable

knowledge for the Local Government Units (LGUs) to plan further in terms of

mitigating the impact for their communities.

This study may also be of benefit business owners specifically those who

belong under Medium, Small and Micro-enterprises specifically in preparing

mitigating measures against the spread of the virus.

This study may also healthcare administrators and healthcare facilities

in anticipating their capacity, procedures as well as additional resources

needed at the right time which basically pertains to the planning and

budgeting of such facilities.

Scope and Limitations

Scope

The data used was sourced from the Department of Health's COVID-19

Case Tracker, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Our World in Data.

Limitations

Based on the emerging nature of the data and data availability, the study

does not follow any systematic data collection process, thus, the data may be

incomplete and biased. To mitigate such problems, the authors opted to rely on

the official data reported by the Department of Health (DOH), WHO and Our

World in Data. This study is also limited to an exploratory approach in terms of

comparing the results vis-à-vis the results in countries like Vietnam.

Furthermore, the forecasts will only be valid given the current policies and

protocols in preventing the spread of COVID-2019. Any changes in the current

system will subject to the recalibrating of forecast.

This study will be a part of a baseline for further studies regarding the

COVID-2019 cases in the Philippines hence this study may not arrive with the

same conclusion as to other similar studies due to data availability and

accessibility.
Definition of Terms

Coronavirus disease 2019 or the COVID19 – the most recently discovered

coronavirus disease is the Coronavirus disease 2019 or the COVID-19, which

was first identified on 31 December 2019 in Wuhan, the capital of China’s

Hubei province.

Department of Health (DOH) - the government's over-all technical authority on

health. It is the executive department of the Government of the Philippines

responsible for ensuring access to basic public health services by all Filipinos

through the provision of quality health care and the regulation of all health

services and products.

Exponential Smoothing - a rule of thumb technique for smoothing time series

data, whereas in the simple moving average the past observations are weighted

equally, exponential functions are used to assign exponentially decreasing

weights over time.

Forecasting - the process of making predictions of the future based on past and

present data and most commonly by analysis of trends.

World Health Organization (WHO) - a specialized agency of the United Nations

responsible for international public health.

Our World in Data - a scientific online publication that focuses on large global

problems such as poverty, disease, hunger, climate change, war, existential

risks, and inequality. The publication's founder is the social historian and

development economist Max Roser. The research team is based at the

University of Oxford.

RELATED LITERATURE

As defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Coronavirus

disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered

coronavirus. People infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate

respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment. Common

symptoms of the disease include fever, dry cough, tiredness, body aches and

pains, sore throat, diarrhea, conjunctivitis, headache, loss of taste or smell,

rashes on skin or discoloration of fingers or toes. Serious symptoms include

difficulty in breathing or shortness of breath, chest pain or pressure and loss of

speech or movement. It is advised to seek immediate medical attention if the

infected person have serious symptoms while people with mild symptoms who

are otherwise healthy should manage their symptoms at home. For symptoms

to show, it takes 5–6 days, on average or up to 14 days from when someone is

infected with the virus. Several measures were advised to slow down the

transmission. This include regular hand washing with soap and water, or with

alcohol-based hand rub, maintaining a distance of at least 1 meter, avoiding

touching your face, covering the mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing,

staying home when unwell, refraining from smoking and other activities that
weaken the lungs and practicing physical distancing by avoiding unnecessary

travel and staying away from large groups of people [1].

The recent outbreak was first identified on 31 December 2019 in Wuhan,

the capital of China’s Hubei province. Since then, it has spread globally, and

the WHO declared this outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International

Concern on 30 January 2020. As of 14 June 2020, a total of 7,905,198 COVID-

19 cases found and 432,962 people have died [2].

It is believed that the novel coronavirus began infecting humans in late

2019 in Wuhan, a city in China's Hubei Province. Major events and actions

taken against the disease resulted to a dramatic decrease in cases and by

March 10, the number of new cases reported per day had fallen to less than

20, suggesting that the outbreak had largely come under control in the.

Measures include an 11-week lockdown in Wuhan from January 23 up to April

8, increased healthcare staffing, building of field hospitals and collection of

donated plasma from recovered patients [3].

To ease comparison of countries performance against the disease and

identify better-performing countries that can prevent or mitigate COVID-19, a

model by Leslie et al. was adopted. In the model, day by day tracking of cases

started from the moment when a country reaches 100 cases. Some countries

can be derived as “success story” as they can flatten the case curve in relation

to the progress of time. The curve is based on the cumulative number of known

cases over time. Some countries have recently been able to maintain a steady
growth of infection and therefore formed a flat line or become successful in

“flattening the curve” as termed by Leslie et al. (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Distinguishing Better

Performing Countries than Others by

Using Leslie et al. (2020) model

Based on the principle of “the flattening

curve”, countries like China and South

Korea were included in the successful

stories in the control of the disease.

Countries like Singapore and Japan, wherein the number of cases grew very

slowly was also part of “flattening the curve”, or better-performing country. On

the other hand, Italy, United States of America (USA) and United Kingdom (UK)

were facing exponential growth and, therefore, fall under the category of

underperforming countries in controlling the disease[4].

Out of the top twenty countries currently most affected by COVID-19,

France and the UK has shown to have the most deaths proportionally to their

positive cases or population (respectively) but not necessarily the most deaths

overall (Figure 2). Other countries in the list are Italy, Mexico, Ecuador,

Canada, Indonesia, USA, Brazil, Iran, Colombia, Egypt, India, Peru, South

Africa, Pakistan, Chile, Bangladesh,

Russia and Saudi Arabia [5].

Figure 2: Mortality in the most affected countries

Policies in dealing with COVID-19 vary among the successful and unsuccessful

countries. Countries which handled the initial outbreak response better than

others include Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia,

Canada, Germany, Iceland, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Greece and Argentina.

Rank ordering of effectiveness were based on a methodology developed by the

Eurasia Group to assess key country responses across three areas: healthcare

management, political response, and financial policy response. Each category

were developed based on qualitative and quantitative criteria. Mobility and

testing performance (scaled by population) were the basis for the health metric.

For the governmental effectiveness, internal analyst rankings of the authorities’

effort, the public reaction, and domestic and international coordination were

used. Finally, in terms of economic policies, scaled the magnitude of the fiscal

and monetary effort, relative to the financing gap and starting position,

adjusted for our teams’ view of the scope to respond (fiscal and monetary policy

space) [6].

On that note, per Statistica, 22 countries ranked both in terms of

effectiveness and the subsequent level of public approval (per survey data from

YouGov). Countries included in the survey were Australia, Canada, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,

Norway, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, UK, USA and
Vietnam. Top five countries garnering positive responses were Vietnam,

Malaysia, Taiwan, Australia and Denmark. On the other hand, five countries

garnering negative responses were the UK, Mexico, USA, France and Spain [7].

WHO has identified the vulnerable and high risk groups of the

community. These are people who are older than 60 years or who have health

conditions like lung or heart disease, diabetes or conditions that affect their

immune system [8].

Taiwan: Single-Payer System, Effective COVID-19 Response

Taiwan which has a single-payer system where in according to the Council on

Foreign relations it was considered as an effective response against COVID-19.

Despite being a densely populated urban area and closely link with mainland

China, where the coronavirus was first detected, Taiwan has had only a few

hundred cases. Experts say that’s because the Taiwanese government, led by

President Tsai Ing-wen, quickly implemented its epidemic response plan which

was established after the 2003 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

(SARS). It used technologies including cellphone applications that track user

data and body-heat sensors to determine coronavirus patients’ close contacts,

enforce quarantines, and monitor body temperatures. It also banned

manufacturers from exporting medical supplies and increased production of

masks. Coronavirus tests are free, and hospitals were required to test patients

early on.
United Kingdom: Government-Run Care, Delayed Effort

Though the country was ranked near the top [PDF] for pandemic preparedness

by the Global Health Security Index, the virus took a heavy toll as Prime

Minister Boris Johnson’s government opted against mass closures for weeks

after its peers in Europe implemented lockdowns. By mid-April, the UK had

close to eighty thousand coronavirus cases—including Johnson himself—and

around ten thousand deaths. The NHS said it would free up tens of thousands

of hospital beds by postponing nonemergency procedures and buying space in

private hospitals. A London convention center was also quickly repurposed into

a makeshift hospital. Additionally, thousands of former health workers were

being retrained to assist in the crisis, while specialists in other areas were

being redeployed. However, many have raised alarm about a lack of ventilators

and protective equipment. The government has imported some ventilators,

loaned some from the armed forces, and urged companies to produce more.

The country was testing around four people per one thousand, compared to

South Korea’s nine per thousand, and aimed to boost that by mid-April.

South Korea: Public-Private System, Swift Response

After struggling to battle an outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

(MERS) in 2015, South Korea invested heavily in emergency preparedness and

designated the Ministry of the Interior and Safety as the main coordinator in
health crises rather than the prime minister or the president, currently Moon

Jae-in. Experts have commended the country’s quick efforts to “flatten the

curve” and keep total deaths below two hundred. After the first case appeared

in January, the government rapidly developed a diagnostic test and has tested

millions of people for free. Many South Koreans have taken advantage of drive-

through testing sites. The government designated specific hospitals for COVID-

19 patients and required patients seeking other medical care to visit non-

COVID-19 hospitals. It also mobilized the private sector to produce medical

supplies for public use.

Australia: Hybrid System, Avoids Widespread Outbreak

Also ranked among the highest countries for epidemic preparedness and

response, Australia has not been as hard-hit by the pandemic, reporting

around 6,300 cases of the virus and just under sixty deaths by mid-April.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government and state officials sustained strict

containment measures even as the rate of new infections appeared to be

decreasing, fearing that without such measures, intensive care units could

become overwhelmed within weeks. Tens of thousands of hospital beds and

thousands of doctors and nurses were moved out of private hospitals and into

public ones to ease stress on the public system. The country has also had

among the highest rates of testing per capita, averaging ten thousand tests per

day in late March. Health experts have credited the high testing levels, along
with early social-distancing measures, with preventing widespread, undetected

community transmission.

Netherlands: Private Insurance for All, Partial Lockdown

The Netherlands has a national public health institute with guidelines in place

for epidemics. Following the institute’s recommendations, Prime Minister Mark

Rutte’s government implemented social-distancing measures in March, but

decided against a full lockdown, arguing that a controlled spread of the virus

could build immunity. By mid-April, around twenty-five thousand people in the

Netherlands were infected and more than 2,500 had died. Though the rate of

transmission appeared to be slowing, authorities warned that hospitals’

intensive care units could reach capacity. Private venues, including a concert

hall and hotels across the country, have been turned into makeshift emergency

centers to alleviate stress on hospitals, which have had high rates of infection

among staff. Some Dutch patients have received care in neighboring Germany.

As of April 6, the country’s per capita testing was on par with that of the United

States, but was far behind South Korea’s.

United States: Public-Private Mix, Disjointed Response

After the United States reported its first coronavirus case in late January, the

Trump administration banned travelers from China. However, experts say that

in the following weeks the federal government failed to implement a plan for a
wider outbreak. Despite being ranked as the most prepared for a pandemic, the

country did not ramp up capacity in hospitals or substantially boost

production of medical supplies. Some states, such as California, implemented

early lockdown measures and had more success in curbing the virus’s spread.

An initial diagnostic test designed by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) proved to be faulty, delaying testing nationwide for weeks and

preventing health officials from having an accurate picture of the disease’s

spread. By mid-April, the United States reported the most coronavirus cases

and deaths in the world. With many states facing shortages, Trump has used

emergency powers to compel private companies to manufacture ventilators for

patients and masks for health-care workers. March 2020 legislation made

coronavirus tests free, but costs for treatment vary.

Germany

Germany’s response to the virus is held up as a model within Europe, reflecting

a measure of good luck as well as its strong starting position. The country was

spared the early surge in cases that neighbors Italy and Spain saw, and its

quick containment efforts (including widespread testing, extensive public

communication and transparency) received broad public support. With plenty

of hospitals and intensive care beds, it was able to bend the curve. And it also

has helped that, for the most part, social distancing guidelines seem to have

been observed.

The government’s fiscal effort initially fell short of what some had hoped given
its substantial fiscal space, but markets have been impressed by its decision to

amend budget rules and adopt a substantial package of measures, and more

recently German support for novel pan-European pandemic support

mechanisms has changed the shape of European policy forever. It is hard to

give full credit to the leading country in Europe when the virus exposes, and in

many respects intensifies, pre-existing European cracks and frictions. Europe’s

rule and standard-setting ability is getting weaker over time on a number of

fronts, but against the dysfunction of the world, Germany has handled the

crisis well.

Iceland

Iceland quickly instituted a broad (and free) testing and contact-tracing regime

to identify and isolate Covid-patients, with such good results (just 10 people

have died from coronavirus; seven were above the age of seventy) that they

were able to avoid a total shutdown and had schools, museums and some

businesses begin reopening by the middle of April once the case numbers were

firmly in decline. It helps if you’re a country of just 364,000 people, but even

then Iceland punched above its weight—it had the highest per-capita testing

rate worldwide.

The initial rounds of government stimulus did not have the same levels of

direct new government spending compared to the economic firepower

unleashed by others, but then again, neither has the economic devastation
been nearly as bad. The full-scale of the economic hit will be revealed alongside

tourism numbers on which Iceland is highly dependent, but for now, Iceland

remains one of the better stories.

United Arab Emirates

Making this list is hard; making this list while also taking part in a global oil

price war is even harder, but the United Arab Emirates have managed it.

They’ve done so by adopting stringent social distancing measures (lockdowns +

curfews, even banning public Eid Al Fatr prayers and celebrations) and

aggressive disinfection cleaning campaigns, helping limit the total deaths from

coronavirus to less than 300 despite having their first confirmed case back on

Jan 29th.

It’s helpful that all COVID costs are covered by the government irrespective of

insurance status; more questionable is their decision to levy $5,500 fines on

anyone who shares any medical information on social media that doesn’t

adhere to the government’s narrative, a useful tool for limiting both conspiracy

theories… alongside other kinds of speech. In the end, this surveillance system

helped ensure that initial lockdown measures were successful—the fines were

high but the monitoring mechanism worked to dissuade violations. Its central

bank has been particularly aggressive on the liquidity stimulus front (don’t

forget that oil war, too) as well to provide some financial ballast. Taken
together, the UAE coronavirus response ranks high, and it does so in spite all

the other geopolitical distractions it has going on these days.

Greece

For a country that was finally showing signs of economic emergence from its

decade-long financial crisis, the pandemic could not have hit at a worse time.

But there’s one major silver-lining: a decade of austerity cuts left Greece with a

health infrastructure system unable to carry the weight of any significant

coronavirus outbreak in the country. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis saw

the writing on the wall, and didn’t hesitate—roughly three weeks after Greece

recorded its first coronavirus case in late February, the entire country was in

strict lockdown. What little resources the Greek state did have was directed to

procuring more ICU beds and health workers. The result? Less than 200

COVID-related deaths. Recent polls show Mitsotakis’ New Democracy with a

20-point advantage over its next-closest political rival, an impressive showing

given a decade of fractious politics that saw the country’s entire political

spectrum upended by austerity politics. The country has since begun lifting

lockdown, allowing Greeks to (mostly) resume daily life.

The hard part is still to come. The Greek economy is overwhelmingly dependent

on tourism (accounting for roughly 20% of GDP and 700,000 jobs all told), and

restarting the Greek economy means restarting tourism…which also means

restarting the possibility of another coronavirus outbreak. The government is

attempting to devise a system that will allow tourists to still travel to the
country while keeping the risk of the virus spread low (a critical component of

which is only allowing travelers from low-case countries in the initial days of

the tourist season), but this is new territory for everyone. And given the state of

the global economy, it is far from clear that the money and demand for a

typical Greek summer vacation—from either foreigners or Greeks themselves—

will be there. The next few months will be critical for Greece on multiple fronts,

but that shouldn’t detract from what it’s managed to accomplish so far.

Singapore

Singapore was among the first countries hailed a “winner” for its pandemic

response, a well-deserved reputation on the back of its aggressive approach to

contact-tracing (which included scanning people’s IDs at supermarkets) and

widespread testing. In retrospect, Singapore was well-positioned to outperform

others in its pandemic response given its previous lessons learned from the

SARS epidemic, its small size (5.7 million people total) and centralized “nanny

state” approach not just to healthcare crises, but other facets of policy as well.

The government built temporary bed spaces at breakneck speeds to house

COVID-19 patients, keeping the casualty rate low (<0.1% of confirmed cases).

Singapore’s response was tarnished with a secondary outbreak centered in

overcrowded migrant housing, highlighting the awful living conditions (with as

many as 20 people sleeping in the same room) endured by the city’s hundreds

of thousands of migrant workers. At one point, 88 percent of the country’s

cases were in the migrant housing areas that eluded the government’s initial

response, calling attention to the incredible inequality in Singaporean society.

Still, the government’s multiple and sizeable stimulus packages (totaling 20

percent of the country’s GDP) to keep its economy afloat is admirable, as was

its ability to build up deep financial reserves over the years to help it weather

precisely these types of financial shocks. Its central bank further fortified the

economic response by sharply easing monetary policies by levels not seen since

the Global Financial Crisis. And despite its troubling treatment of migrant

workers, it has also successfully managed to keep the outbreak from

expanding further into the general population, a good sign that it can respond

effectively to contain new cases.

New Zealand

When it comes to a global pandemic, it helps being an island nation tucked

away in a far-flung corner of the globe. But New Zealand’s rise in the rankings

is so much more than good geographic fortune. New Zealand’s first case was

detected on Feb 28th, and relative to other governments, moved swiftly to shut

down the country—less than three weeks later, the country shut its borders to

outside travelers, and a week later had not only shut down non-essential

businesses but went even further, instituting a “level 4 lockdown” which meant

that people could only interact with people within their home in an attempt to

“eliminate” the virus all together (accompanied by emergency text messages

that plainly explained what was expected of individuals). You need to be in a

fortunate position to even be able to attempt that, but the orderly way which
New Zealand did so was admirable, accompanied by Facebook Live videos by

the country’s prime minister, Jacinda Adern. Now the country is COVID-19

free.

As of this writing, New Zealand had registered 1,504 COVID cases total and

just 22 COVID-related fatalities. New Zealanders have praised their

government’s early response and coordinated messaging; in April, 88 percent of

New Zealander’s said that they trust their government in handling the

pandemic, compared to the 59 percent average across the G7. Also helping? A

promise by the prime minister that no one would lose their residence if they

lost work, a raft of tax reforms aimed at helping the country’s small

businesses, and the symbolic-yet-still-appreciated move taken by Adern and

her ministers to take a 20 percent cut to their salaries. In a budget released in

mid-May, a new fund that’s roughly equivalent to 17 percent of GDP has been

set up to keep jobs and reduce the unemployment rate over the next two years

—the move will take the government from a surplus to a deficit this year.

Canada

The only entry from North America you’ll find on this list… and the responses

between the Canadian and American federal governments to Coronavirus could

not diverge more. Of course, this is not an entirely fair comparison, as

healthcare systems and federalized powers differ between the two neighbors.

Be that as it may, it’s hard not to conclude that Canada’s universal, publicly-
funded approach to healthcare isn’t better suited for handling a global

pandemic.

Even in things that are potentially comparable between the U.S. and Canada—

say, public messaging coordination around the virus between health agencies

and national and local governments, or monetary support of international

efforts to cooperate on pandemic responses—Canada is faring much better.

And a critical component of that has to do with not letting the pandemic

response be seized by partisan politics, relying on science to guide the

healthcare responses instead (it remains to be seen if the same will hold true

for subsequent economic stimulus measures).

Some academics contend that it was Canada’s experience (and more

specifically, its failures) with SARS almost 20 years ago that better prepared

them for this current pandemic—that experience convinced many Canadians

that the federal government has a critical role to play in health care, which

before had been the responsibility of the provinces, and the country spent the

last decade-plus finding ways to integrate the two. Combine that with

significant fiscal and monetary measures taken by Canada (one of the richest

countries in the world, and one that values social safety nets at that), those

looking towards North America for global leadership in these trying times

would probably do well to train their sights a little higher.

Argentina
The most surprising entry on this list given that the country has triggered its

ninth financial default. Argentina registered its first coronavirus fatality on

March 7; by the time the government imposed a quarantine on March 20, the

world had caught up to the threat of the crisis and Argentina introduced strict

social distancing measures and citizens heeded them well. As a result, its

numbers look much better than most of its neighbors.

With the bipartisan cooperation of Argentina’s governors and congressional

figures, the coronavirus management response of Alberto Fernandez’s new

administration (which garnered the approval of 83 percent of Argentineans) has

led to a boost in approval ratings. That domestic approval is critical as he fends

off international investors and drives through the country’s ninth default.

Fernandez (alongside his vice president and former president Cristina Kirchner)

are Peronists who subscribe to more leftist economic policies, and true to their

ideological roots, offered low-paid workers a 10,000-peso lump sum to help

them weather the crisis. But while their will to spend on domestic stimulus

might be there, the reality of their government finances and looming debt

repayments to foreign creditors constrains them considerably (their stimulus

package amounts to just 4.9 percent of their GDP), and their bid to print more

money may push them into inflation hell. Meanwhile, new cases in Buenos

Aires are rising, and there is growing criticism of the strict lockdown

(restrictions have been eased elsewhere). Nevertheless, their desire to take care

of their people and the decision to divert resources from paying debt to do so—
even at the risk of looming financial collapse—has been the best choice among

bad alternatives.

METHODOLOGY

The study mainly used the data from the Department of Health (DOH)

COVID-19 Case Tracker and the World Health Organization (WHO). The

rationale for choosing these platforms is because of the emerging nature of the

data and the availability of the data. The study does not follow any systematic

data collection process, thus, the data may be incomplete and biased. To

mitigate such problems, the researchers opted to rely on the official data

reported by the DOH and WHO. For ease of case comparison between the

regions were conducted and adopted the model per Leslie et al [4].

The Excel and the SAS software was utilized in the statistical analysis

and to produce the necessary table, graphs and charts.

Exponential smoothing at α = 0.05 was utilized to produce forecasted

values of the COVID-19 cases, death and recoveries. The exponential

smoothing method works best for moving average processes. In the model, the

most recent data are weighted more heavily than data in the early part of the

series. The weight of an observation is a geometric (exponential) function of the

number of periods that the observation extends into the past relative to the

current period.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results

COVID 19 Confirmed Cases

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
20 2 0 20 2 0 2 0 20 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2 0 2 0 20
n- b- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- y- y- y- y- y- y- y- y- n- n- n-
J- a -F e -Ma -Ma -Ma - Ma -Ma -Ma -Ap -Ap -Ap - Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap -Ap Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma -J u -J u - Ju
30 5 8 12 16 20 24 28 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 3- 7- 1- 5- 9- 3- 7- 1- 4 8 12
1 1 1 2 2 3

COVID 19 Confirmed Cases

COVID-19 Cases in the Philippines (from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

 700 30000

600 25000

500
20000
400
15000
300
10000
200

100 5000

0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n- 2 b-2 r- 2 r- 2 r- 2 r-2 r- 2 r- 2 r-2 r-2 r-2 r- 2 r- 2 r- 2 r- 2 r- 2 y- 2 y- 2 y- 2 y- 2 y- 2 y- 2 y- 2 y- 2 n- 2 n-2 n- 2
a e a a a a a a p p p p p p p p a a a a a a a a u u
- J -F -M - M - M -M - M - M -A -A -A - A - A -A - A - A M M M M M M M M -J -J -Ju
30 5 8 12 16 20 24 28 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 3- 7- 11- 15- 19- 23- 27- 31- 4 8 12

NCR IV-A VI
VII IX XI
COVID 19 Confirmed Cases

COVID-19 Cases in the Philippines (Highly Affected Regions)

Confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines by gender

30000

25000

20000 Deaths
Cases
15000

10000

5000

0
Total Male Female
 Confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines by age
group
6000

5000

4000 Deaths
3000 Cases

2000

1000

0
Above 70–79 60–69 50–59 40–49 30–39 20–29 10–19 0–9 n/d
80

Confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines per Region

16000
14000
12000
10000 Deaths
Cases
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
NCR VII IV-A III XI IX VI I V IV-B VIII CAR X II XII BAR XIII
 Forecast of Confirmed Covid-19 cases using Exponential Smoothing (from

January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast COVID-19 cases in the Philippines

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
/ 2 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/2 6/2 6/2 6/2 6/2

Actual Value Forecasted Value L95 U95

Forecast of Confirmed Covid-19 cases using Exponential Smoothing (June 1 –

24, 2020)
Forecast of Confirmed Deaths due to Covid-19 using Exponential Smoothing

(from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast Death due to COVID-19 in the Philippines

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Actual Value Forecasted Value L95 U95

Forecast of Confirmed Deaths due to Covid-19 using Exponential Smoothing

(June 1 – 24, 2020)

Forecast of Confirmed Covid-19 Recoveries using Exponential Smoothing (from

January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast COVID-19 Recoveries in the Philippines

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
/ 20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20 /20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/1 6/2 6/2 6/2 6/2 6/2

Actual Value Forecasted Value

L95 U95

Forecast of Confirmed Covid-19 Recoveries using Exponential Smoothing (June

1 – 24, 2020)
Forecast of Daily New Covid-19 Cases using Exponential Smoothing (from

January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast of Daily Death due to Covid-19 using Exponential Smoothing (from

January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast Covid-19 cases in the National Capital Region (NCR) using

Exponential Smoothing (from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

 Forecast Covid-19 cases in Calabarzon Region (IV-A) using Exponential

Smoothing (from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast Covid-19 cases in Western Visayas Region (VI) using Exponential

Smoothing (from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast Covid-19 cases in Central Visayas Region (VII) using Exponential

Smoothing (from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Forecast Covid-19 cases in Zamboanga Peninsula Region (IX) using

Exponential Smoothing (from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

 Forecast Covid-19 cases in Davao Region Region (XI) using Exponential

Smoothing (from January 30 – June 12, 2020)

Discussions

As of June 12, 2020 data, the average fatality rate in the Philippines is

4.33%, of which nearly 48% of the confirmed cases and 64% of the confirmed

deaths were male. Out of the 23,732 COVID-19 confirmed cases nearly 23%

were aged between 30-39. In addition, out of the 1,027 confirmed deaths more

than 66% were aged 60 and above. It can also be surmised from the resulting

estimated forecasts that generally, there is still an increasing trend in the

COVID-19 cases in the Philippines. However, data in selected highly affected

regions has indicated that the trend has slowed down, specifically in the NCR,

IV-A, IX and XI. The regions VI and VII however has an estimated increase to

its COVID-19 cases within the month of June.

 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Based on the results of the exponential smoothing, there will be an

expected increase in the result when assumptions are consistent as well as if

there will be no changes in the respective protocols implemented by the

Philippine Government across all regions. On the other hand, based on the

lower range forecast, there will be a partial downtrend given the same

assumptions.

Moreover, when the trend is considered, it is apparently going to

continue on an upward trend hence there is still an expected increase in the

number of cases in the Philippines. This trend also holds true for the

forecasted deaths concerning the disease.

With regards to the number of forecasted recoveries, there will be an

expected increase but is not on the same level as to the historical data of the

recoveries in the previous days.

Other regions elicit an upward trend for both new cases and deaths

except Region IX hence this can be one of promising regions to have positive

results in the fight against the pandemic.

Recommendations

In view of the current situation wherein the problem is still developing,

information is scarce and incomplete, claims are less scientific evidence-based.

In the future where data is complete and a systematic data collection process is

available, specific and granular assessment may be conducted. In addition, the

minimum number of cases adopted per Leslie et al [4] was 100, however to

include assessment of other regions, the minimum number may be lessened

further to at least 50.

It is also apparent that the succeeding studies consider additional

variables like financial, health protocols, government interventions, private

company interventions, etc., into the forecasting model so as to properly

determine the variables which significantly affects the increase and/or the

decrease of new cases, deaths and recoveries of patients in the Philippines.

The researchers also recommend further studies in creating forecasting

models specifically customized per region because this may help government

entities, private and non-government organizations in catering to the demands

specifically unique to their region. This may help them in developing more

thorough mitigating measures countering emergencies like this pandemic.

The researchers also recommend to consider regression analysis or other

appropriate methods depending upon data availability and assumptions

considered so as to derive more accurate results. It is also apparent that

forecasts are recomputed time and time again so as to consider the

fluctuations of data.
References:

[1] World Health Organization. Coronavirus. (cited 14 June 2020). Available at:

https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1

[2] Coronavirus Cases [Internet]. Worldometer. 2020 (cited 14 June 2020).

Available at: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-

cases/#daily-cases

[3] Hopkins Johns. University Center for Systems and Science Engineering.

Hubei Timeline (cited 14 June 2020). Available at:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hubei-timeline

[4] Leslie T, Gourlay C, Byrd J, Hanrahan C, Elvery S, Liddy M, et al.

Coronavirus data shows which countries have it under control. What did they

do right? ABC News (Australian Broadcast Corp. 2020 Mar 26) (cited 14 June

2020); Available at: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-26/coronavirus-

covid19-global-spread-data-explained/12089028?nw=0&pfmredir=sm

[5] Hopkins Johns. University Center for Systems and Science Engineering.

Mortality Analyses. (cited 14 June 2020). Available at:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[6] Time. The Best Global Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic (cited 14 June

2020). Available at: https://time.com/5851633/best-global-responses-covid-

19/

[7] Statista. CORONAVIRUS The Best and Worst Rated National COVID-19

Responses. cited 14 June 2020). Available at:

https://www.statista.com/chart/21928/approval-ratings-national-covid-19-

responses/

[8] World Health Organization. COVID-19: vulnerable and high risk groups

(cited 14 June 2020). Available at:

https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/high-

risk-groups

[9] Comparing Six Health-Care Systems in a Pandemic. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/comparing-six-health-care-systems-

pandemic?fbclid=IwAR1jhQa8oQLkOmiGwDm5yPQnhoBNMu9tu1uiMjvpF-

JRwEjd7rwuBHVk-AQ

[10] Bremmer, I. (2020, June 12). The Best Global Responses to COVID-19

Pandemic. Retrieved from https://time.com/5851633/best-global-responses-

covid-19/