Daily Archives: December 19, 2020

Over the last year, the pandemic has caused the global economy to contract by 4.4%. At the same time, one trend has accelerated worldwide: digitalization. As countries face repeated lockdowns, school closures, and shutdowns of entire industries, digital capabilities whether for remote schooling, e-commerce, or working from home have become more essential than ever. But how exactly has this played out around the world and what do governments, businesses, and investors need to do to come out on top?

To explore these questions, our colleagues at Tufts Universitys Fletcher School partnered with Mastercard to develop a third edition of the Digital Evolution Scorecard (following earlier editions published in HBR in 2015 and 2017). The 2020 edition is accompanied by an interactive policy simulator, and offers analysis of 90 economies based on a combination of 160 indicators across four key drivers: Supply Conditions, Demand Conditions, Institutional Environment, and Innovation and Change. Specifically, we used a combination of proprietary and public data from more than 45 different databases, as well as analyses conducted by the Fletcher Schools Digital Planet team, to explore the following questions across our core subject areas:

The scorecard takes in all this data and then assesses economies along two dimensions: the current state of the countrys digitalization and the pace of digitalization over time (as measured by the growth rate of the digitalization score over 12 years, 2008-2019). As shown in the graphic below, the resulting atlas for the digital planet segments economies into four distinct zones: Stand Out, Stall Out, Break Out, and Watch Out.

This zone includes economies with both high levels of existing digitalization and strong momentum in continuing to advance their digital capabilities. Three economies are particularly notable: South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. These, along with others, such as Estonia, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates, are consistently top performers in this index, and have demonstrated both adaptability and institution-led support for innovation. Interestingly, the U.S. also shows remarkable momentum for an economy of its size and complexity, scoring second in digital evolution after Singapore.

So what does it take to be a Stand Out economy? While every case is different, our analysis suggests that the most successful of these countries prioritized:

This zone is characterized by economies with limited existing digital infrastructure, but which are rapidly digitalizing. China is a noteworthy outlier in this group: Its digital evolution is significantly higher than that of all other economies, due in large part to its combination of rapidly growing demand and innovation. Indonesia and India are also notable members of this group, ranking third and fourth in momentum despite their large economies. In addition to these large emerging economies, midsize economies such as Kenya, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Argentina have all displayed increasing digital momentum, suggesting the potential to rapidly digitalize for both post-Covid economic recovery and longer-term transformation.

Based on our analyses, we found that successful Break Out economies prioritized:

This zone is characterized by economies many of which are in the EU that have mature digital landscapes, but which exhibit less momentum for continued advancement. In part, this is likely to due to the natural slowing of growth that accompanies maturity. Many in this zone have also intentionally chosen to slow their growth in order to ensure that they grow responsibly and inclusively. To regain momentum (without sacrificing these values), these countries should prioritize:

Finally, this zone which includes countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America and Southern Europe is characterized by shortcomings in both existing digital capabilities and momentum for future development. Countries in the Watch Out zone can look to Break Out economies as role models and benchmarks for how to use digital growth as a lever for economic resilience. Particularly for those that demonstrate emerging or sustained digital demand, Watch Out economies should prioritize:

Of course, an analysis of global technology and economic trends over the past year would be incomplete without an examination of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Most interestingly, while a high Digital Evolution score has generally correlated with greater economic resilience to the disruptions of the pandemic, it hasnt been a guarantee.

To explore this question, we mapped countries Digital Evolution scores against their percentage decrease in GDP growth from Q2 2019 to Q2 2020 (adjusted for inflation). As expected, we found that overall, the level of digital evolution helped explain at least 20% of a countrys economic resilience or cushioning against the pandemics economic impact. This cushioning comes from many sources: For example, more digitally-evolved economies tend to derive a larger share of their GDP from high tech sectors, where the workforce can shift to remote working more readily. In addition, digitally-evolved economies tend to be better at delivering public services online due to superior infrastructure, experience with digital transformation in much of the public sector, and accessible, affordable internet. Some even leveraged their superior digital evolution for contact tracing, exposure identification, data collection, and public health messaging that significantly minimized economic disruptions (South Korea and Taiwan offer excellent examples).

That said, this effect was not universal. Vietnam scored low on our digital evolution scorecard, but the impact of the pandemic on its economy has thus far remained smaller than expected. Vietnam is the only South East Asian country on track for economic growth this year, largely because the government was able to keep the virus under control through aggressive preemptive measures. In addition, the recent economic boom from Chinese manufacturing shifting to the more affordable Vietnamese market also helped the country to maintain its economic growth through the crisis.

On the opposite end, we also saw that the UK a highly digitally-evolved economy experienced an economic decline on par with India or Rwanda. Not only was the government response to the pandemic less than optimal, the composition of the UK economy also caused it to suffer disproportionately from social distancing and lockdowns: Services (which are are disproportionately reliant on in-person activities) make up around three quarters of the UK economy, and 10.9% of the countrys GDP comes from travel and tourism all of which were severely curtailed due to social distancing requirements.

Overall, digital evolution is an essential contributor to economic resilience, but it is no panacea. The governments Covid response, as well as the unique composition of its economy, can make a big difference as well.

***

Aside from the impact of the pandemic, this analysis also illustrated several more long-term trends around how the most successful countries are pursuing digital evolution:

Economies that provide secure, frictionless digital experiences nurture the most positive, engaged consumers, creating the most active digital ecosystems. These ecosystems then generate more data, which is the lifeblood of a competitive digital economy, enabling a virtuous cycle of growth. Economies such as Singapore, Japan, Canada, and the Netherlands illustrate this approach well, with a combination of open data flows and strong privacy protections.

Meanwhile, economies such as China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia represent a paradox: While significant state investment and control over their digital ecosystems can lead to higher digital momentum, these economies also impede the free flow of data, resulting in missed opportunities to further boost that momentum through digital products and applications that rely on widely accessible data. The growing popularity of data localization laws (i.e., regulations that limit the transfer of data across international borders) is ultimately making data less accessible, which not only hinders global growth, but often also diminishes countries own competitiveness by raising costs for digital businesses, reducing competition, and encouraging rent-seeking behavior among domestic actors.

To start to address these challenges, policymakers would do well to measure, monitor, and understand the value of what we call the New GDP: a countrys Gross Data Product. Once theyve begun to understand their New GDP, economies can begin to unlock its full value by encouraging open data flows while providing adequate privacy protections for their citizens.

Mobile internet access has been a strong driver of momentum for Break Out economies, and it is the fastest route to getting the third of the global population that doesnt yet have internet connectivity online. India is the preeminent example: Its internet connectivity has doubled in the last four years, and the country is on track to add 350 million smartphones by 2023.

However, mobile phones are merely the first step in unlocking the benefits of digitalization. The pandemic has illustrated how the quality of both access (i.e., reliable broadband versus sporadic satellite connections) and devices (i.e., laptops and tablets well-suited to learning and working versus low-end mobile phones) is a key component of economic resilience in a time of heavy reliance on digital technologies. For example, when the pandemic shut down in-person schooling in India, many children had to resort to WhatsApp to communicate with their teachers. Although the messaging app was certainly better than nothing, the limited growth of Indias digital ecosystem beyond mobile phones created major inequalities in access to essential education.

Given these considerations, less digitally-advanced economies would do well to focus on improving access to affordable mobile internet but should not lose sight of the need to also invest in better devices and faster, more reliable access. This strategy has contributed to the high momentum demonstrated by Break Out zone economies such as Kenya, India, and Vietnam. And of course, China leads the pack globally when it comes to mobile adoption, thanks to a combination of massive investments in 4G infrastructure and a competitive mobile device marketplace including Xiaomi, Oppo, Huawei, and Vivo.

While investing in mobile is a great first step for economies with limited existing digital infrastructure, policymakers should endeavor to expand their gaze beyond simply increasing the number of mobile devices, recognizing that longer-term growth will depend on the quality of internet access, the devices, and the overall consumer experience.

Once economies reach a higher level of digital evolution, they often encounter a tradeoff between maintaining their rapid momentum and fostering institutions that prioritize digital inclusion that is, the equitable distribution of digital development across class, gender, ethnicity, and geography. While smaller economies such as Singapore and Estonia may have an easier time maintaining their innovative edge while still ensuring an inclusive digital environment, larger, more complex economies can struggle to balance innovation with the bureaucracy needed to responsibly regulate that innovation.

For example, European economies most of which fall into the Stall Out zone hold six of the top 10 spots on our Digital Inclusion index. These economies have pioneered inclusive public policies such as ensuring affordable internet access, providing assistive technologies for the disabled, and investing in workers digital skills, and they are at the forefront of developing regulations for data governance and privacy. Many of these initiatives have (rightly) become a standard for the rest of the world but that focus on inclusion has somewhat slowed slowed the pace of new digital development in many of these economies. These tradeoffs may well be worth making, but governments and citizens alike will benefit from clearly understanding and planning for their potential impact on digital momentum.

***

There is much that decision-makers from every country can learn from their positions on the 2020 Digital Evolution scorecard. But they can also learn from other countries as benchmarks, role models, or even cautionary tales. For example, Singapore, Estonia, Taiwan, and the UAE have all established effective, self-reinforcing digital ecosystems through a combination of strong institutions and investment into attracting global capital and talent. They have also successfully leveraged these digital strengths to adapt to the challenges of the pandemic, demonstrating the importance of digital development for building economic resilience. Despite their small size, economies like these can serve as models for leaders around the world.

In addition, large economies with high digital momentum such as China, India, and Indonesia can serve as role models for other large developing economies, such as Brazil and Nigeria, that may be looking to step up their digital momentum in the coming years. And smaller developing economies can look to midsize leapfrog nations such as Kenya, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Argentina for examples of how digital momentum can rapidly transform an economy.

There are no one-size-fits-all solutions to digital evolution. Every country is unique, and the factors that enable one economy to succeed are far from certain to work in another. But despite these limitations, the 2020 Digital Evolution Scorecard can still offer clarity around the current state of both digital development and digital momentum around the world as well as the impact of that digital evolution on countries responses to the pandemic. Insight into how the nations of the world have fared (and what policy choices helped them get where they are) is the first step for anyone interested in fostering digital growth and economic resilience in their own community and around the globe.

The authors are grateful to Griffin Brewer, Christina Filipovic, and the Digital Planet team at the Fletcher School, and Paul Trueman at Mastercard.

Editors note: Every ranking or index is just one way to analyze and compare companies or places, based on a specific methodology and data set. At HBR, we believe that a well-designed index can provide useful insights, even though by definition it is a snapshot of a bigger picture. We always urge you to read the methodology carefully.

See the article here:

Which Economies Showed the Most Digital Progress in 2020? - Harvard Business Review

We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remake our approach to science. This moment, in all its difficult uncertaintyCOVID-19, economic turmoil and the crescendo of a long overdue national discussion about racial justicedemonstrates why universities, funders and other research stakeholders should move decisively to embrace open science. By adopting what are called open science practices, we can align the incentive structures of research production and consumption with our values, and catalyze the scientific progress our society so desperately needs.

The two of usthe president of Arizona State University (ASU), which has topped U.S. News & World Reports Most Innovative Schools list since the inception of the category in 2016, and the director of the Open Research Funders Group (a collaboration of leading philanthropies that collectively confer more than $10 billion in grants annually)call on our peers to commit not only in principle, but also in practice, to creating a more efficient, effective and equitable research ecosystem.

Open science, to quote Michael Nielsons Reinventing Discovery, is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process. That open science is an integral tool in the fight against COVID-19 is indisputable: the importance of access to scientific articles and data to help identify promising vaccines and therapeutics was recognized by publishers and researchers alike early in the pandemic. As a consequence, the research community has worked rapidly to take down the barriersincluding article paywalls, data hoarding and siloed lab work that chronically impede scientific progress.

The open dissemination, discussion and testing of COVID-19-related science has quickly taken the place of these outdated norms. Within one month of the first reported case, the virus was rapidly sequenced and openly posted to GenBank, the NIH genetic sequence database. Scores of researchers racing to learn more about COVID-19 shared their early findings as openly accessible preprints. These findings were tested and refined in real-time discussions that were tracked publicly and transparently. Papers that could not withstand replication and reproducibility efforts were quickly and publicly debunked, allowing the scientific community to pursue more promising research avenues. Society and commercial publishers made subscription-controlled coronavirus articles available to all. The protocols and technology behind the Yale School of Public Healths COVID-19 saliva test have been made available as open source.

Two clear conclusions can be drawn from this rapid alignment. First, the daily workings of science have practical ramifications in all our lives. Scientific norms affect not just researchers working in labs, but also policy makers, doctors, patients, families, and the general public. Second, open science is the form of research dissemination and global collaboration that best reduces vexing limits to knowledge that are exacerbated by COVID-19. If rapidly and openly sharing research data and papers is critical to understanding and combating coronavirus, doesnt the same hold true for cancer? Heart disease? Climate change? The scientific communitymoving with great speed and clarity of purposehas clearly signaled that open science is the most efficient way to tackle issues that have a significant and direct effect on the lives of the general public. The unambiguous conclusion is that open is better for science.

Importantly, open is also better for the economy. For example, around the turn of the century, the massive and massively successful Human Genome Project placed research results in the public domain. This commitment to open science generated nearly $800 billion dollars in economic benefits between 1988 and 2010, a return on investment of $141 for each dollar of the federal governments investment in the project. More than 310,000 jobs in the U.S. economy were created, directly and indirectly, totaling almost four million job-years of employment as a result of this scientific undertaking. Similarly, we also owe the development of global positioning systems to the real-world implementation of open science principles, a development that produced more than $50 billion in economic benefits.

Indeed, across a range of sectors from health care to energy, a McKinsey estimate from 2013 put the potential economic value of open data alone in the trillions of dollars annually, equivalent to more than three times the global economic impact of the automotive industry. By leaning into open science practices, we can fuel innovation, job creation and economic growth. As Franklin Roosevelt opined in 1941, at a similar moment of upheaval and uncertainty, the enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living is one of Americas basic expectations.

In addition to being better for science and better for the economy, open is better for society. ASU has found strength in defining success not in whom it excludes, but whom it includes. When knowledge and innovation rest in the hands of the few, we struggle to reach our collective potential. Access to data and published research democratizes information and allows more voices to join the scientific conversation. It removes a layer of insularity in ways both big and small. To take one example at the systemic level, the average library expenditures at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are significantly less than those of non-HBCU counterparts. This translates in real terms to a racialized inequality of access to the journal articles, books, and other materials upon which future research can be formulated.

At the individual level, the exchange of scientific information often occurs in direct personal interactions. Data that are otherwise proprietary may be shared among close peers and colleagues. Scholars without access to paywalled articles can request copies from the authors, but may be hesitant to do so if they are not part of the same informal networks. By making these materials open for allto access, replicate, question and build uponwe can contribute to both levelling the playing field and widening the circle of science.

Universities, philanthropies, government agencies and other stakeholders can accelerate the positive effects of open sciencein the fight against COVID-19, in our efforts to strengthen the economy, and in our quest for a more just societyby aligning our incentive structures with our values. Practically, this means exercising specific points of leverageincluding hiring, funding, tenure and promotionto ensure that research practices become more open. Many examples are flowering today. Dozens of university departments include language in their job postings along the lines of This department values transparent, replicable research and open science principles. This sets the expectation that open practices will be a component of not only the job interview but, for the successful candidate, of the job itself. A wide range of philanthropies are now asking grant applicants to explain how they have historically made their work open, and how, if funded, they will make their outputs open going forward. This provides a powerful incentive (the promise of financial support) for researchers to adhere to open practices.

Aligning research incentives to reward open science practices may seem daunting, but university and philanthropic leadership can start the process by taking specific, concrete actions that have already been proven effective in practice. While a number of organizations have launched fully actualized open science programs, notably McGills Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital (The Neuro) and the Rochester Institute of Technologys Open@RIT, university presidents and provosts can move their institutions systematically toward open simply by engaging in a structured dialog with their researchers. In this spirit, we call on universities to emulate MIT and launch an open science task force. MITs work began with a concise charge from its provost, to coordinate a renewed Institute-wide discussion of ways in which current policies and practices might be updated or revised to further the Institutes mission of disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible.

The MIT model is a true collaboration among the administration, chairs and faculty that includes the development and deployment of open science plans tailored to the disciplinary considerations of each department. It is predicated on the acknowledgement that what constitutes open science best practices in, say, anthropology, will differ from what works for zoology.

Facilitating this bespoke departmental approach are the many emerging norms and policies articulated by professional societies such as the Linguistics Society of America, the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science and the American Geophysical Union. Ideally, the recommended policies that arise from these task forces will resonate with faculty from both an institutional and a disciplinary perspective. The ultimate goal is to develop "mutually reinforcing vectors," an environment in which researchers hear consistently from a range of influencers at their university, within their discipline, and across potential funding sources that open practices are both warmly encouraged and properly rewarded.

In support of this "mutually reinforcing vectors" approach, we also call on philanthropies to adopt grantmaking policies that encourage researchers to share their outputs (articles, data, code, materials, etc.) openly and rapidly. In this effort, they can lean on the work of funders ranging from the American Heart Association to the Gates Foundation to the Michael J. Fox Foundation to craft language and workflows that have been field-tested over thousands of grant conferrals. Philanthropies can also draw from policy language templates (developed by the Open Research Funders Group and endorsed by funders including the Sloan Foundation and the Wellcome Trust) to implement a stepwise approach to more closely aligning their incentivization schemes with open science principles.

While open is better for science, the economy, society, it is not magic. It takes concerted, direct effort by key stakeholders to effect change. It also takes a community of practicesharing successes, roadblocks, and solutions; developing and testing resources that explain the whats, whys and hows of open; and identifying key opportunities to expand the coalition of the willing. One such effort is the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicines Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Science (in which we both participate). The Roundtable includes direct representation from colleges and universities, philanthropies and government agencies.

Crucially, the broader network of stakeholders engaging with the Roundtable also includes more than 500 professors, postdocs, librarians, professional society representatives, publishers, funders and other stakeholders. For any university or philanthropy finding itself not yet prepared to take the plunge in the manner we have outlined above, we warmly encourage you to engage with the roundtable to get a better sense of the tangible steps your peers are taking to stimulate open science within their institutions.

There are hurdles to widespread adoption of open science practices, to be sure. Researchers need proper training on data management plans, reuse licensing and other good open science hygiene. Infrastructure must be developed and nurtured to preserve scientific data, curate it and render it actionable. And organizations must overcome their natural entropy, which makes tackling big, cross-cutting initiatives like open science challenging. While these obstacles are nontrivial, they are small in comparison to the scientific, economic, and societal benefits of open. In a moment of great peril, maintaining the status quo will ultimately prove more costly.

See the original post:

We Must Tear Down the Barriers That Impede Scientific Progress - Scientific American

There are more than 50 clinical trials worldwide testing potential vaccines, known as candidates, against COVID-19. So far, two of the vaccine candidates have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use.

The majority of vaccine candidates for COVID-19 are still in a preclinical phase. That means the candidate vaccines are being tested in animal experiments, for example, rather than with human patients.

Please note:To be displayed as approved in the chart, a vaccine needs to be either approved by the USFDA or the European Medicines Agency(EMA), or cleared for emergency use by FDA, EMA orWHO. More details can be found here.

When those tests are deemed successful, candidate vaccines can move into clinical trial phases. That's when they are tested with humans. There are three clinical trial phases for efficacy and safety before a vaccine can be approved for use by humans. The phases differ from each other, most significantly in their scale:

Some companies, such asBioNTech-Pfizerin Europe, and Sinovac in China, have tested their vaccine candidates in several trials in parallel. For example, they have tested the same vaccine but in different age groups or with different dosages.

If clinical trials are successful, a company can formally apply to regulatory bodies to have their vaccine approved for use by the general public.

Three regulatory authorities are considered to be particularly important in this context: The FDAin the US, the Europea EMA,and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Device Agency in Japan.

When a vaccine is approved, it doesn't mean everybody can get it immediately.

First, the vaccine has to be produced on a mass scale. With COVID-19, manufacturers aim to produce billions of doses by the end of 2021.

Second, logistics experts have to ensure appropriate distribution of the vaccine, and political leaders haveto decide who gets the vaccine first.

Read more: Can a vaccine be given out fairly?

In the end, though, it will be up to each individual to decide. A survey of more than 13,000 people in 35 countries most affected by COVID-19 showed that the majority of people asked would choose to get vaccinated.

It can take several years to develop an effective and safe vaccine. On average, it takes between 10 and 12 years, but it can take longer. The search for a vaccine against HIV has been going since the early 1980s so farwithout success.

In the case of COVID-19, researchers are racing to shorten the time it usually takes because of the ongoing pandemic. Despite the pressure that that brings, vaccine developers, manufacturers and the World Health Organization (WHO) say there will be no compromises on safety.

Research teams are aiming to accelerate, or limit, the time it takes to get to approval during the pandemic to an average duration of 16 months.

However, that will only be the beginning. Once clinical trials are successfully completedand a vaccine is approved and produced, researchers start phase IV, during which they observe the progress of vaccinated patients.

Researchers are pursuing 12different approaches for vaccines against COVID-19.

Most of the vaccine candidates use a protein-based subunit so, instead of using a complete pathogenic virus, they are built on a small component of it, such as a protein found in its outer shell.

That protein is administered to patients in a high dose, with the aim of inducing a fast and strong reaction by the human immune system.

The hope is that the immune system will "remember" the protein and trigger a similar defense reaction if or when it comes into contact with the actual virus.

Vaccines against hepatitis B and HPV (human papillomavirus), for example, are based on this principle.

Four additional approaches have made it to phase III.

Non-replicating viral vectors are a type of so-called recombinant vaccines: Researchers modify the virus' genetic information by switching on or off or altering certain functions. By doing that they can, for example, reduce the infectiousness of a virus. Such genetic modifications, however, require that science already has detailed knowledge about which parts of a virus' genetic material are responsible for which functions in order for them to be able to manipulate them effectively. The term "non-replicating" means that the virus in the vaccine enters cells in the human body but is unable to reproduce there on its own.

Inactivated vaccines use a "dead" version of the pathogen. They tend to provide a lower level of protection than live vaccines. Some vaccines in this class have to be administered several times to achieve sufficient immunity. Examples of inactivated vaccines include ones against influenza and hepatitis A.

RNA vaccines follow a different strategy, without using any "real" component of the virus at all. Instead, researchers aim to trick the human body into producing a specific virus component on its own. Since only this specific component is built, no complete virus can assemble itself. Nevertheless, the immune system learns to recognize the non-human components and trigger a defense reaction.

Vaccines based on virus-like particles use another approach: Researchers only use the empty virus envelope without any genetic material inside of it to train the immune system.

At time of writing, there were well over 100 research teams worldwidedeveloping a COVID-19 vaccine. So far, 15 teams have advanced their candidate vaccines to the third phase of clinical trials.

Five teams stand out for conducting the most extensive clinical trials:

Go here to see the original:

COVID-19 vaccine tracker: What's the progress? - DW (English)

Contractors at TowerPinkster have been busy at Lowell schools this fall, making progress on the bond projects passed by voters in 2019.

At Lowell Middle School, exterior foundations and footings are being poured for the addition on the west end of the school and interior wall footings are starting to go up. Workers have also cut into the masonry around the band room door in preparation for future demolition to connect the addition to the existing building.

The two-story addition will add classrooms and collaboration spaces for project-based learning.

At Alto Elementary School, construction to add five additional classrooms to the building is nearly complete.

Voters approved the $52.1 million bond in May 2019 to fund infrastructure upgrades and improvements. Other projects addressed in the bond include improved parent drop-off and bus circulation at the middle school and Murray Lake Elementary, outdoor athletic improvements and updated technology and furnishings.

Read more from the original source:

Bond projects making progress in Lowell - School News Network

In comparison to previous offseasons in which Jerry Dipoto was ostensibly trying to build a winner (2016, 2017, 2018), things have been comparatively quiet this offseason as we head into a season where the team needs to show improvement on the field. There was no blockbuster deal on day before Thanksgiving (or day of). No splashy position players have been signed or traded for yet. No international players have been wooed to join us in Seattle. No, Jerry said he was going to sign some relievers, and by gum, thats exactly what he has done. Is this a new era of truthiness for Jerry Dipoto? Only time will tell, readers.

So while we wait for something surprising to happen, or get further lulled into a false sense of security, lets do a progress report of sorts. Obviously it is still quite early and plenty more could happen between now and mid-February, but for the sake of discussion, lets roll with what weve got so far.

To the polls!

Thats all I got! Sound off in the comments if I missed any options you were looking for or if you have any further offseason stragetic thoughts. Lets hear it!

Follow this link:

FanPost Friday: Offseason progress reports and polls - Lookout Landing

Its noteworthy, perhaps historic, that the winner of the 2020 U.S. Soccer male player of the year award is a 22-year-old midfielder who, after standing out for struggling Bundesliga side Schalke 04 in the spring, became the first American player to sign for mighty Juventus.

Its equally noteworthy that Weston McKennie, whos played 13 times and already scored twice for the Bianconeri, beat out U.S. teammates at Barcelona, Chelsea and RB Leipzig for the American games most prestigious honor.

After a couple down years for the mens national team program, not only has the player of the year award recouped some of its luster, its also become much tougher to win. And that trend is likely to continue as more U.S. players climb the club pyramid in Europe and play games at the highest level. MLS players are eligible as well, of course, but the bar for contention has been raised considerably.

Its yet another sign that the USMNT has entered a new era.

McKennie, 22, won the award after being named on 44% of the ballots cast by national team coaches, players who were called up to the USA in 2020, members of the U.S. Soccer Federation board of directors and Athletes Council, MLS and USL head coaches, media members and former players and administrators, according to the USSF. Each voter selects just one nominee. Last years winner, Chelseas Christian Pulisic, finished second with 27% of the vote and Barcelonas Sergio Dest placed third at 14%. The other finalists were Tyler Adams (RB Leipzig), Jordan Morris (Seattle Sounders) and Gyasi Zardes (Columbus Crew).

McKennie was informed Friday after training in Turin by new National Soccer Hall of Fame inductee Carlos Bocanegra, who met McKennie in 2006 when he was a child growing up at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. McKennie has said that meeting, which also included Landon Donovan, sparked his dream to play for the national team.

I want to thank everyone for this huge honor. Its been a journey, especially through these difficult times during the pandemic, McKennie said. Our fans have stuck with us throughout and we really appreciate it. Hopefully in 2021 we can have many more memories together.

The pandemic limited the USA to four friendlies in 2020, and only two of those came during a FIFA window and were open to players based in Europe. McKennie started and excelled in those October games, a 0-0 draw at Wales and a 6-2 win over Panama. But this was a year in which club performance was going to take precedence, and McKennies was good enough at Schalke to earn the move to Juventus. Once there, he attacked the opportunity. Hes made eight starts already, including three in the UEFA Champions League, and there are reports that Juventus is ready to make his loan from Schalke a permanent transfer.

McKennie is the fourth-youngest recipient of the award, which was first handed out in 1984. He finished third last year, but the 2019 honor was a two-man race between Pulisic and Morris. It was an uneven period for the USA as coach Gregg Berhalter looked to get comfortable and implement his system during his first year in charge.

U.S. Soccer

The Americans advanced to the Concacaf Gold Cup final but were beaten by Mexico on a frustrating night outside New York City. Then there was the embarrassing Nations League defeat to Canada in Toronto. By years end, only Pulisic and Morris really stood out. Pulisic tallied three goals and three assists at the Gold Cup and then completed his move to Chelsea, for which he scored five times. Morris was outstanding for Seattle in MLS, notching 13 goals and eight assists, but no one else really staked his claim during a year of national team transition.

Goalkeeper Zack Steffen was named player of the year in 2018, an even stranger period marked by coach Dave Sarachans interim tenure, a lot of friendlies and a voting dynamic that saw Adams and McKennie split the exciting European prospect vote. Steffen started in five of the USAs 11 games and backstopped the Crew to the MLS Cup quarterfinals as he was named MLSs goalkeeper of the year. In 2018, that was enough.

The year before, untainted by the USAs World Cup qualifying failure, Pulisic won the first of his two awards with a ridiculous 94% of the vote. That type of landslide wont happen again. That year, the voting was an indication of crisis. This time and in the future, its likely to reflect the unprecedented growth and progress of the American player pool.

Read the original here:

USMNT's Progress, Growth Reflected in Evolution of Player of the Year Voting - Sports Illustrated

Volunteers help pack dozens of swag bags to be handed out Saturday, Dec. 19. Photo courtesy of Eddie Purpose

Free masks, hand sanitizer from noon to 3 p.m. at both Safeway locations in Federal Way.

Local organization Progress Pushers will be holding two personal protective equipment grab-and-go events this Saturday in Federal Way.

Progress Pushers, founded in mid-2018 by Eddie Purpose, mentors youth and young adults who have been impacted by the criminal justice system. By doing so, the group strives to provide local youth with job readiness skills, civic engagement tools, leadership development and more.

From noon to 3 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 19, the team will be handing out free masks and hand sanitizer, swag bags and turkeys as supplies lasts At both Federal Way Safeway grocery store locations (1207 320th Street and 2109 SW 336th Street).

The events are funded in part by King County, Federal Way Youth Action Team, Federal Way Black Collective, and Build 2 Lead.

For more information about the event or Progress Pushers, email info@progresspushers.org or call 253-431-7195.

Photo courtesy of Eddie Purpose

Excerpt from:

Progress Pushers to host grab-and-go PPE events this... - Federal Way Mirror

MAGOFFIN COUNTY, Ky. (WTVQ) With major construction progress and another large federal financial allocation, 2020 was a year of success for the Mountain Parkway Expansion project.

In June, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet was awarded a $55 Million federal INFRA grant that will help to fund what will be the fifth segment of the Mountain Parkway Expansion to go under construction the Wolfe County segment.

The Mountain Parkway Expansion is important to modernize a critical Kentucky route, and increase access between Eastern Kentucky communities and the rest of the state.

The progress the Mountain Parkway team has made this year in securing federal funds, advancing a new segment of the project, and moving forward with work on two active construction sites has brought the project team closer to completing work on the Parkway, and providing an improved high-speed corridor to Kentucky drivers, said Gov. Andy Beshear.

The Morgan and Magoffin County West segments underwent significant construction during 2020, with the two segments accounting for 12.8 combined miles of active construction.

The Morgan and Magoffin County West segments together account for one of the largest stretches of construction our teams will work on while widening the Parkway, said KYTC Secretary Jim Gray.

Morgan County

Crews are working on the two final bridges that will pass over KY-134 at approximately the 60.5 and the 62.3 mile markers. Teams began construction in late October on what will be the final bridge to be built on this segment of the Parkway.

In addition to ongoing bridge work, crews have completed the excavation near the Morgan-Magoffin County line, and are now paving this section of roadway, before opening it to traffic by mid-December.

The Morgan County segment stretches from the Lee City/West Liberty interchange, near Helechawa (Exit 57), to just west of the Cutino-Hager Road overpass.

The anticipated completion date for this segment is Summer 2021.

Magoffin County West

The Magoffin County West segment of the Parkway runs from west of the Cutino-Hager Road overpass to west of the Middle Fork of the Licking River Bridge, covering about 4.6 miles of roadway.

The planned improvements include widening the Parkway to four lanes between mile markers 65 and 69.6, making safety improvements that include eliminating a sharp curve at Kernie Hill, and adding an interchange at KY 3046 (Kernie-Ova-Seitz Road) to provide local Parkway access.

Excavation continues as the primary focus for crews on the Magoffin County West segment. Though most of this work cannot yet be seen from the Parkway, crews are actively moving materials in areas not visible from the roadway. As of Nov. 27, crews had excavated over 1.4 Million cubic yards of material on this segment.

Teams have finished constructing the fourth box culvert that is required for this section of the project. Once completed, crews will have built a total of six box culverts to aid in water flow along this section of the Parkway.

The anticipated completion date for this segment is Spring 2023.

Wolfe County

Right of way, utility work, and relocation activities all kicked off this summer and will continue through 2021 as teams prepare this segment for construction in the coming years.

The Wolfe County segment of the Parkway will run from the end of the four-lane section on the Mountain Parkway near Campton, at mile marker 45.8, to just west of the Lee City/West Liberty interchange (KY 205), at mile marker 56.8.

The improvements to this segment will include widening the Parkway to four lanes, reconstructing the existing Campton interchange (KY 191) to allow full eastbound and westbound access to and from the Parkway, and modernizing the Hazel Green interchange (KY 1010) to improve safety and mobility.

The Wolfe County segment is scheduled to be let for construction in 2022; the anticipated completion date for this segment is 2027.

The Mountain Parkway Expansion is a 46-mile transportation improvement project that will create a wider, safer connection between Eastern Kentucky and the rest of the Commonwealth.

It is a key transportation project designed to close the only gap in a 400-mile, four-lane, high-speed corridor for commerce and mobility across Kentucky. The project will widen 30 miles of the existing parkway to four lanes and extend the parkway between Salyersville and Prestonsburg.

See the original post here:

Mountain Parkway marks year of progress - ABC 36 News - WTVQ

Bill Atkinson|The Progress-Index

Don't plan on standing in front of or behind state Sen. Amanda F. Chase in any line to get the COVID-19 vaccine she does not want it.

Chase, one of two announced Republican candidates for the 2021 gubernatorial nomination, said she does not plan to get the vaccine, and posted a link to a Washington Times article claiming a nurse who got the vaccine fainted during a press conference in Tennessee to talk about the first vaccinations there. This week, the first wave of Pfizer Inc.-manufactured vaccines were given out to healthcare workers in all 50 state per Centers for Disease Control protocols.

"Thank you, Washington Times, for not hiding this story," Chase posted. "Allow the people to fully educate themselves on the COVIDvaccine thats rolling out to our healthcare workers and let the people make an informed and educated decision."

As for her own choice, Chase concluded the post with, "I will not be getting the vaccine,"

The Times, a traditionally conservative-leaning news outlet, reported that nurse manager Tiffany Dover was explaining how the vaccine was being administered when she fainted at the podium 17 minutes after getting her shot. But the article goes on to say that doctors at the hospital where she works said the fainting spell was not related to the vaccine but to an existing condition Dover has, which she confirmed in the article.

Chase whose Senate district includes the city of Colonial Heights has been an outspoken critic of Virginia's response to the pandemic and restrictions placed on social gatherings, the wearing of face masks and public accessibility, In her campaign around Virginia, Chase is appearing at rallies where social-distancing is not practiced, and no one including the candidate herself is wearing a mask. Her campaign mantra over curbing the spread has been, "Educate, not mandate."

Politicians from both sides of the aisle have promoted the safety surrounding the vaccine. Vice President Mike Pence was vaccinated Friday morning, and former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have vowed to be publicly vaccinated.

A spokeswoman for Del. Kirk Cox of Colonial Heights, who also is seeking the Republican nomination for governor next year, said Friday that while Chase may not be in the line when the vaccines are given to everyone else not associated with front-line healthcare or LTC residents, her candidate will be.

"At some point down the road, when the vaccine is more broadly available to the public, Delegate Cox would have no issue getting vaccinated," Cox press secretary Kristin Bennett said.

Bill Atkinson (he/him) is the news director of The Progress-Index, located his hometown of Petersburg, Va. He is also the breaking-news coordinator and has been known to "nerd out"over political news coverage and history. Contact Bill at batkinson@progress-index.com, and follow him on Twitter at @BAtkinson_PI, and subscribe to us at progress-index.com.

See more here:

Governor hopeful Chase says she does not plan to get the COVID vaccine when it is her turn - Progress Index