SECTION 1 -----------------

Overall, this is a nice section which certainly can serve as a "reference" to the rest of the paper. This is a section where the data is explained, and the models used in the following sections is also explained. From this, readers skipping ahead to the "conclusions" or "results" sections will be able to reference section two for the technical details. 

Section two serves two overall purposes: First, we are introducing the specifics of the data, and the issues that arise. Second, we are introducing and explaining the details of the models beign used in the rest of the analysis. Due to this, it could make sense to split this section by this locgic: One subsection for Data, one subsection for Models. Next, it seems like two types of modeling were used: SIR and ARIMA. From this, we could split the models section into one outlining this to, gradually building in the details of the assumptions, notation, travel, multi country, etc... 


SECTION 2 -----------------

2, P1: The purpose of this section is to introduce the data source (PAHO), and give a high level idea of what data is collected.  

In the first sentence, we can remove "According to PAHO guidelines". Unless we mean that "PAHO Requies countries to collect..". To me, the point of the sentence here seems to be intoducing the variables collected, so I'm not sure this first part adds anything. 

As an english aside, it doesn't immediately jump out the me what "indigenous" means. It may help to write "foreign" instead, as more readers will understand what this means. 

We could probably insert paragraph 2 into paragraph one here. "In addition to collecting the raw counts, PAHO computes the indicence rate, which is the number of confirmed cases per 100K". 

The final paragraph here seems out of line with the rest of the section, which is introducing the data and the issues with the data. It seems we could either remove it in its entirely, or add it to a different section. In fact, it seems like introducing the basic idea of the SIR model makes sence in setion 2.1 

2.1 -------

Maybe this section could be labeled: Compartment Model, since the focus is more tailored to this as opposed to fitting a multi country model. 

2.2 / 2.3 -------

Since this model wasn't used in the results section, this may be moved to an "appendix", where the details could be explained. It seems like it would be a very useful model if we had the mosquito data, but since we don't it it isn't something the reader needs to know to follow the rest of the paper. 

2.4 -------

This model is quite different that the otehrs presented. It may help to state this explicitly: "While the previous models used Differential equations, a different approach for modeling disease counts is an ARIMA model..", or something along those lines. This way, the reader can link back to the previous sections, as well as understand why this model is different.