Quarantines in particular we, we should have had that down, because that's, that's the basic first level of public health that has been going on for 100s of years. So the fact that those policies were determined on the fly, and different so dramatically from state to state to, to state is an indicator of reactive kind of polices. We really want public health to be, public health policy decisions to be based on the best science available, not on the best politics available. So that's why we saw some of those, those, those differing policies. It's, it's okay if some states have diff, you know slightly different policies based on where they're located, based on what their risks are, based on the, you know, the populations. Some states within the U.S have, have more clusters of people from West Africa, so they might not, need to have slightly different policies in place. But the fact that, you know, honestly some governors were making decisions based on what they thought was, was the best thing for the state without really taking into account how the disease was spread, is really not the way you, you want it to go. >> We saw this in New Jersey and New York, and a handful of other states where the governors declared quarantine, new quarantine rules for returning individuals including health care workers, who are volunteering in West Africa. IDSA opposed those particular rules, because they weren't science-based. I think where public health can make the biggest difference is understanding that adjustments to policies are going to have to be made. And that an ongoing and transparent communication with the public is imperative, so that you understand how, so that the public understands how public health authorities are reacting. And how they're acting to to change course and make sure that they're, that they're putting forward policies that are based on the latest scientific understanding of the threat.