Are deer much more dense than in the past?
And as bad as Lyme is, if we kept predators like wolves in the civilization-adjacent forests, would it be better or worse --- today's Lyme rate vs the counterfactual wolf attack rate if they stayed?
And as bad as Lyme is, if we kept predators like wolves in the civilization-adjacent forests, would it be better or worse --- today's Lyme rate vs the counterfactual wolf attack rate if they stayed?
I'm not sure the counterfactual is really relevant. I'm just saying Lyme is the poster child for this kind of problem. My preference would be for more risk from wolves and more diverse ecology, with less suburbia and more forest. If your preference is for whatever causes the least number of deaths then you're going to have to also integrate driving, pollution, carcinogens, etc., into your model.
Just to be clear, there is essentially zero risk to humans from wolves. Wolves present a risk to livestock, and that's the reason humans eradicated them from most of the places they used to roam.
https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-need...