Hacker News Reader

Comment by rb808 | Hacker News Reader

I've stopped hiking and camping largely because of this. Its just not worth it any more.

This page has an uncommon photo of just how small the nymph deer ticks are. https://sectionhiker.com/backpacking-lyme-disease-prevention...

View on HN

Something is wrong here. How did humanity survive living most of their lives outdoors for so long in the presence of these ticks? Did lyme disease really not exist until 1975?

I see there is some kind of "blame everything on lyme disease" movement going on as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease_controversy

Tick populations have expanded greatly in recent years.

Things like climate change and wildlife management practices are thought to be a factor.

(warmer winters->less ticks die, more deer->more deer ticks)

That sucks it is a climate change linked issue...

I already know I will find that more sensitive tests for tick borne diseases have been developed so essentially the definition of these diseases has changed, funding for surveillance has increased, the methods of counting ticks have become more sensitive, etc.

EDIT:

Yep, this looks like a good starting point if anyone is interesting in trying to figure out what is really going on. I'm not sure if I will bother:

"A later surge in interest in ticks and tick-borne pathogens has been inspired by recent claims about the impact of forecasted climate change on the spatial distribution of ticks and associated pathogens (Brownstein et al., 2003; Ostfeld et al., 2005; Diuk-Wasser et al., 2006; Ogden et al., 2008; Jaenson et al., 2009). However, this research has been fraught with difficulty from the outset because of insufficient knowledge about the nature of many tick-pathogen associations (Randolph, 2009; Franke et al., 2013; Medlock et al., 2013). A proper understanding of how abiotic factors shape the transmission cycles of tick-transmitted disease agents awaits a more rigorous analysis that is often limited by the current availability of data and the many indirect mechanisms that bear on them (Kahl et al., 2002; Eisen, 2008).

We assume that the many procedural and analytical errors in current tick and tick-borne zoonotic disease research are often a consequence of a lack of knowledge or of suitable training.

[...]

Typical problems include errors in tick identification (especially of immature instars), premature or erroneous reporting of ticks as new vectors and hosts as reservoirs, superficial data on the abundance and seasonal activity of ticks, inappropriate use of statistical methodology, and uncontrolled laboratory diagnostic procedures. The very ready accessibility of research publications online, at least in abstract form, tends to exacerbate the situation in that, as a result of superficial reading and subsequent citing, an erroneous conclusion can quickly become embedded in the literature. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737478/

Need more Wolves!

And bird of prey, fox, coyote, bear, wildcats, mountain lions, human hunters, etc.

The entire ecosystem has been overmanaged to reduce predators, and the consequences are dire.

A lot of people in Connecticut honestly believe Lyme disease was a direct result of Three Mile Island. I find the conspiracy hilarious but others take it as fact

Tick populations have surged, mostly because of mice, rodent, and deer overpopulation. And we've killed off huge numbers of natural predators to those carriers.

Anecdotally, 15 years ago I used to maybe find one tick a year after frequent walks/hikes in grasslands or woods. Today I can walk the same trail systems and find 10+ ticks per dog after a single days walk even when they have tick/flea treatment applied. It's a frequent topic of discussion in outdoorsy groups and communities, vet clinics, ranchers, etc.

I see. Do you (anecdotaly, in your opinion) rule out that people are more concerned about ticks these days, so they are checking more carefully and/or often?

I find most people are naive of the problem especially in the west coast states, unless they spend a lot of time outdoors either recreationally, or landscaping, gardening, ranching, farming, hunting, etc.

You certainly want to check yourself after going out, but for dogs and animals the difference is just very outwardly obvious as you will see them crawling on their fur, on their beds, or you feel the lumps on their skin once they embed if you are petting them. Anecdotally this was not something I ever found 15+ years ago in the exact same environments. But beyond anecdote, by all official recordings (often from deer hunting, they measure a small portion of the deer and count how many ticks are found in a square) the numbers are skyrocketing, largely in line with concurrent overpopulation of deer and rodents.

>"I find most people are naive of the problem especially in the west coast states, unless they spend a lot of time outdoors either recreationally, or landscaping, gardening, ranching, farming, hunting, etc."

Right but those different groups of people would have also existed 15 years ago so this is not really relevant. I'm just asking if the group that does care about it is more vigilant and careful than before, and if that could explain it.

>"You certainly want to check yourself after going out, but for dogs and animals the difference is just very outwardly obvious as you will see them crawling on their fur, on their beds, or you feel the lumps on their skin once they embed if you are petting them. Anecdotally this was not something I ever found 15+ years ago in the exact same environments."

Ok, so the answer is that the level of vigilance required to notice a difference is so low that it can't be the primary explanation? Regarding the dog anecdote though. If it is 15 years later the dogs are either much older or different dogs, so they may be rolling around in different areas, etc. Still interesting but that is why anecdotes are anecdotes.

Correct my anecdote is an anecdote.

The dramatic growth of deer and rodent population, as well as ticks, is well studied however.

Since you seem interested in this topic here are a few relevant links:

http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/fact_...

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_0...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6835501/ns/us_news-environment/t/d...

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/03/06/5182194...

https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/

Wow that first link has number of deer in Connecticut at nearly zero a hundred years ago.

> I find most people are naive of the problem especially in the west coast states, unless they spend a lot of time outdoors either recreationally, or landscaping, gardening, ranching, farming, hunting, etc.

I find that most people who spend a lot of time outdoors are also naive about Lyme. I can't count the number of people here in BC who've told me that Lyme doesn't exist here (medical doctors included). The employees at REI asked me why I was buying permethrin just to use in BC. They said Lyme isn't a concern here.

On the other hand, growing upon Pennsylvania decades ago, both ourselves and our dogs would get covered by (dog) ticks whoever we went out in the woods or meadows around the house. Tick-borne diseases were much less of an issue though.

For dogs, at least, there is a Lyme vaccine.

E.coli wasn't harmful but a new deadly strain appeared in the 1980s.

After a quick search it looks like the mainstream explanation is that people were just getting sick for "unknown reasons" before being able to test cheaply enough for e coli:

>"The sudden debut of E. coli O157:H7 in the 1980s made many people wonder how it had come to be. Was it the monstrous product of the modern food industry? Tarr and his colleagues analyzed the genome of the bacteria to estimate its time of origin. “These organisms have been around for 7,000 years,” says Tarr. It’s possible that E. coli O157:H7 and other pathogenic strains caused outbreaks for centuries before microbiologists could identify them as the cause."

http://www.newsweek.com/e-coli-rise-superbacteria-67931

Not to be the conspiracy theorist... But have you ever heard of plum island? Specifically the Plum Island Animal Disease Center which developed bio weapons utilizing ticks as the disease vector? Operations started in 1952. There were several documented cases of poor containment practices and two likely means of transporting the disease back to the mainland (swimming deer and geese). The evidence is pretty damning. Check out the book Lab 257.

I also stopped enjoying my favorite hobby, running on deer trails and through dense forests. I check intently for ticks after ever forest excursion, but it is very disheartening when I find one. They are so incredibly small it seems impossible not to missed one. Plus it is extremely difficult to check your hair and back and I rarely have a running partner. All in all, Lyme disease, indian genocide, and invasion of Libya are my top 3 atrocities US gov has committed.

Thanks, that is another possibility to consider.

From an ecological perspective, consider this.

Humanity is now one of the most successful species on the planet. Seven billion humans is an enormous biomass, and that our livestock make up most of the mammalian biomass on the planet. [1]

So that alone makes us a big juicy target for diseases and parasites which will prey upon us.

A communicable disease which targets, for example, bobcats, isn't going to spread very far or fast, given their low population and disjointed territory.

[1] http://www.kalaharilionresearch.org/2015/01/16/human-vs-live...

Well, traditionally, they would die before turning 40 /s

US life expectancy was 8 years less in 1970. There are lots of things that can do you in that people kind of put up with.

I recommend to have one of these on you at all times while you're hiking

https://www.amazon.com/Life-Systems-34020-Lifesystem-Remover...

> Credit card sized

...

> $11.98 shipping

is it wrapped in silk and gold leaf?.

They tape it to a brick, then ship it

Here's one on Prime:

https://www.amazon.com/Tickminator-Removal-Remover-Prevent-D...

As someone from the south, tools sold for the removal of ticks just makes me giggle.

Just use your fingernail, scratch it off carefully. I can't imagine trying to use this or one of the crazier, "heat a needle" or "spread vasaline on them methods" when trying to remove the sometimes hundreds of ticks and chiggars you might have after working in the wrong field for a day.

Doing it without a tool risks leaving the mouthparts embedded in your skin, leaving you prone to infection even after the tick was removed.

As someone who lived in the south and worked with people who specialized in tickborne illness, none of them recommended the fingernail approach.

Most "tools" are just a specialized set of tweezers, which aid in the pulling process in a way that doesn't separate the body from the head, and are generally recommended by the medical profession.

And the heating, Vaseline, etc. methods aren't just more work - they're actively harmful.

Ridiculously terrible and potentially dangerous advice aside, not everyone has fingernails.

Unless you bite them down to a nub, all you need is a normal, close trimmed fingernail.

Ridiculously terrible and potentially dangerous to remove a tick with your fingernail? I scoff at the ignorance. The great majority of ticks will be unknowingly scratched off before you even notice you have one dug in. So I guess you could use special tools to remove those last 10% that you happened to notice before scratching them off.

I've tried similar tools, and found fine point tweezers are the best. Some of these buggers get so dug in, they don't fit well between the sharp edges.

I got bit by a few ticks and we would always light a match, blow it out, and apply the still hot match to the visible back end of the tick. Scares the little bugger and they pop right out.

Unfortunately the way they pop out is, IIRC from Boy Scouts, at least in part, vomiting. So I was always taught to never induce them out because you'll still risk infection from the excreted stuff.

I soak them with 100 proof whiskey. They loosen up and it's also a disinfectant.

Wow, you would think with all that white (well, transparent anyway) space on that card, they'd print the directions directly onto it. As it is, they're only printed on the packaging, and they really aren't straightforward enough for a person unfamiliar with the card to pick it up and use it properly the first time. Shame.

Just remove them? As long as you remove them within 48 hours you'll be fine. Why go outside? You might get hit by a bus.

Removing them requires two very vigilant people. Also getting hit by a bus is arguably better than life-long listleness caused by lyme disease which might be inheritable to your future children.

Two people to remove a tick? And I thought these little removal tools were crazy.

You'll feel it itching after it digs in. Just be vigilant in the shower and use a loofa or other abraisive scrubber. Fingernails work perfectly fine as well.

Of the literally thousands of ticks I have had to remove over the years, probably less than 5 were ever left on for up to 48 hours. Most people will scratch them loose accidentally.

I've never felt itching with any of the ticks that've gotten me. A few big ones I just noticed running my hands over my body. The one that gave me Lyme I never saw at all. Luckily I got a big bullseye rash and with antibiotics never had worse than an afternoon fever for a few days.

I guess everyone's sensitivity to their bite and poison is different. I generally feel them crawling up my leg before they have a chance to dig in. But you wouldn't be used to that feeling if you live in an area that doesn't have many ticks.

Some spots on your body are very difficult to check carefully and/or reach for a clean, safe extraction.

I went to the ER once to have a tick removed. I felt absurd doing so, but I simply couldn't reach it properly, and I had no one else around to take care of it.

Some baby ticks are smaller than the period at the end of a sentence. They're very easy to miss, even if you are looking.

Baby ticks can still carry Lyme, and can infect you with their bite.

Were you taken seriously? I'd have to think that by what I have heard about insurance companies recently, they would refuse to pay for a hospital visit like that and you would be stuck with a big hospital bill.

I think state of the art understanding is that some of the communicable disease can be caught in under 24 hours now, 48 hours is way too optimistic.

I've read from a few researchers that if you find a tick, just start taking the 21 day antibiotic course right away regardless - even if the thing just dug in.

That sounds extremely irrational.

Not saying ticks aren't a health risk. But an inactive lifestyle is also a health risk, and very likely a much bigger one.

There are things you can do to protect yourself and reduce the risk, e.g. using insect repellents and removing ticks quickly if you see them. Also for FSME there's a vaccine if you live in a risk area (for Lyme there is none, although a vaccine used to exist...).

"Not saying ticks aren't a health risk. But an inactive lifestyle is also a health risk, and very likely a much bigger one."

You don't have to perform activities that expose yourself to the risk of getting tickborne illness just to be active.

Given that the biggest inhibitor of an active lifestyle for most people is motivation I'd say do whatever you like, even if it carries minor risks. And I doubt ticks from hiking overall is a relevant risk.

Last year twice I went out in my yard for just MINUTES and came back with ticks. I assume that any tiny black dot is a tick, and I investigate with a high-power illuminated magnifying glass - the only way I can see that it's a tick.

Besides each door leaving my house is a can of "Off".

Not a criticism but I honestly can’t understand reacting like that. Use permethrin, do tick checks, and take other precautions.

Curious as to which geographic area?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com