Governments, particularly Federal Governments, tend to invest after there's an emergency. So, the year to year money is steady at best, or going down. And if there's a hurricane, like Katrina, a major snowstorm or, or a pandemic outbreak, the pocketbooks of, of policymakers open up pretty widely. Which is important and, and needs to happen but we, we need to see a more sustained level of funding for public health in general and specific to, to emergency preparedness. >> In the past the governments have typically been more responsive about funding for preparedness for infectious disease and pandemics. A great example is, of the bio-security of anthrax in 2001, immediately following there was a lot of influx of government interest and funding. So putting the money where their mouth was, on the, on the subject of bio-security and preparedness. And this actually was a big influx over the course of many years. But, what doesn't happen as often is the government looking forward to might happen investing up front. So that we have the right surveillance infrastructure, the right public health response infrastructure, and the right U.S. health care system to respond to an emerging, infectious threat. The recent Ebola outbreak, in West Africa that resulted in a very small handful of cases here in the United States is a great example of responsive funding rather than getting out in front, or anticipatory funding. And while, while welcome and needed, it is not the right way to approach public health funding.