WhiteBlaze Pages 2024
A Complete Appalachian Trail Guidebook.
AVAILABLE NOW. $4 for interactive PDF(smartphone version)
Read more here WhiteBlaze Pages Store

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Perhaps I should clarify, I didn't say the Southeast (including TX and FL) had anything other than a low risk, which the map clearly shows low risk in most of the Pacific and Southeastern States, with some moderate areas in the Pacific States. That was what I was referring to.
    and i didnt say that lyme disease only existed in the northeast. i stand by my statement. aside from a small area in MN (worth noting) your map shows that lyme disease is more or less concentrated in the northeast.

    as is often the case in these discussions, i think the difference in viewpoint is one of possibility versus commonality or likelihood. lyme is POSSIBLE in lots of places. it is very common or very likely in very few though. nearly anything is POSSIBLE. i could inadvertently carry an infected tick on my person to some foreign country that has never seen a single case of lyme ever and help to cause the first one they've ever seen. it is possible, but so? statistically speaking, if one wants to assess the risk of contracting lyme in that country, it is meaningless. i think you're seeing "low risk" and reading it more like "average risk" etc. low risk, to me, means yes we have seen lyme cases there, but you are overwhelmingly unlikely to contract lyme in these places. if you factor in that we are risk averse and tend, i think, to exaggerate risk at least slightly very often, that something is offically designated "low risk" says quite a bit about just how very low the chances that one would contract lyme in that region are.

    i am interested in what is likely or common. lyme disease is not likely or common in the vast majority of the US. your map does not disprove this, it proves it.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronk View Post
    Lyme disease has been documented in every state and province in North America.
    citation? there are already multiple sets of very reputible data referenced in this very thread that state otherwise.

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-25-2012
    Location
    Lurkerville, East Tn
    Age
    64
    Posts
    3,719
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    Yes, it hasn't made it to many other places that we know of at this point. However no longer is it a strictly Northeastern "phenomenon". Over the years it has expanded to other areas, making a few additional places a high contact hazard like MI and WI. Discount it if you wish, but data is data.

    Attachment 37953

    Interesting that all of Virginia shows up as minimal to low risk, but go north just a tiny bit, and the risk becomes high? And who could have guessed that ticks would know to stay west of the NV/CA line? I like data, but sometimes it gets compiled and presented in ways that undermines credibility. I'm guessing there are significant differences by state in data collection, interpretation, and reporting.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-28-2015
    Location
    Bad Ischl, Austria
    Age
    66
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Just wondering whether you have ticks carrying this virus that causes Meningo Enzephalitis?
    This for many decades has been the bigger problem with ticks here in Europe, only recently Lyme getting more attention.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    citation? there are already multiple sets of very reputible data referenced in this very thread that state otherwise.
    While I wouldn't normally put a lot of stock in CDC data (I believe their methodology results in under reporting of Lyme), their own data show Lyme in every state:

    https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronk View Post
    While I wouldn't normally put a lot of stock in CDC data (I believe their methodology results in under reporting of Lyme), their own data show Lyme in every state:

    https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html

    sure, fair enough if you want to count less than 5 cases in 10 years as being seen in the state, which i guess technically it has been.

    so, serious question for the cautious types- if you were to go hiking in colorado, which has reported 3 cases of lyme since 2005 and none since 2010, would you still do the head to toe clothing soaked in chemicals thing?

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo L. View Post
    Just wondering whether you have ticks carrying this virus that causes Meningo Enzephalitis?
    This for many decades has been the bigger problem with ticks here in Europe, only recently Lyme getting more attention.
    The southeast is full of ticks that carry many diseases other than Lyme. I believe there are over 300 known bacteria carried by ticks. The CDC lists 15 of them that are apparently of particular interest. Techniques for avoiding ticks should probably be used regardless of where you are on the trial (or trail, depending on your point of view).

    https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/diseases/

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-01-2014
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    . . . so, serious question for the cautious types- if you were to go hiking in colorado, which has reported 3 cases of lyme since 2005 and none since 2010, would you still do the head to toe clothing soaked in chemicals thing?
    I probably shouldn't answer this, since I don't consider myself "the cautious type".
    BUT:
    Interestingly, your wording suggests that you are personally of "the caution type" when it comes to chemicals to protect one's self from outside risk while maybe being cavalier to the outside risk of tick born illness?

    As for Colorado, instead of lyme disease, you get to be worried about other tick born diseases like rocky mountain spotted fever. So, to answer your questions, I would suggest that yes, I would still treat my cloths with permethrin, providing me with much lower risk of health consequences than being infected with a tick-born illness.

    That all being said, permethrin treated cloths are only one tool in the toolbox. We survive for years with relatively low risk by regularly inspecting ourselves and cloths, "head to toe", to reduce risk.

    In the end, I'm lazy. If treated cloths reduce the effort I put into self inspection by some amount and increase my safety at the same time, I will use permethrin when it is available and reasonably convenient. Heck, it also reduces the nuisance of mosquitoes providing one more reason to consider it a useful tool.
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nsherry61 View Post
    I probably shouldn't answer this, since I don't consider myself "the cautious type".
    BUT:
    Interestingly, your wording suggests that you are personally of "the caution type" when it comes to chemicals to protect one's self from outside risk while maybe being cavalier to the outside risk of tick born illness?
    not at all, but its a point worth considering, dont you think?

    mostly i'm fascinated by the (over) reactions people have towards various "dangers" in the world.

    i should maybe try and pick a different state than colorado, but i'm sure theres some grave danger anywhere if you're of the sort to look for it.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    06-18-2010
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,133
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nsherry61 View Post
    I probably shouldn't answer this, since I don't consider myself "the cautious type".
    BUT:
    Interestingly, your wording suggests that you are personally of "the caution type" when it comes to chemicals to protect one's self from outside risk while maybe being cavalier to the outside risk of tick born illness?

    As for Colorado, instead of lyme disease, you get to be worried about other tick born diseases like rocky mountain spotted fever. So, to answer your questions, I would suggest that yes, I would still treat my cloths with permethrin, providing me with much lower risk of health consequences than being infected with a tick-born illness.

    That all being said, permethrin treated cloths are only one tool in the toolbox. We survive for years with relatively low risk by regularly inspecting ourselves and cloths, "head to toe", to reduce risk.

    In the end, I'm lazy. If treated cloths reduce the effort I put into self inspection by some amount and increase my safety at the same time, I will use permethrin when it is available and reasonably convenient. Heck, it also reduces the nuisance of mosquitoes providing one more reason to consider it a useful tool.
    sidenote- RMSF is actually more common in places much closer by than colorado.

    https://www.cdc.gov/rmsf/stats/index.htmlx

  11. #31

    Default

    I am a practicing family physician in Vilas county in northern Wisconsin.
    Lyme Disease education and diagnosis/treatment is a significant part of my practice in the warmer months.
    Based on the most recent research conducted by the University of Wisconsin, the nymphal deer tick carries the borrelia bacteria at a rate of 30-35% in our county
    so basically 1/3 of the deer ticks around here are vectors for the disease.
    Definitely significant to me and the patients of the community I serve.

  12. #32

    Default

    A good number of my patients do indeed overreact though, as tdoczi is pointing out.

  13. #33
    double d's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-10-2007
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    still plenty of places where it basically doesn't exist-

    https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html
    Excellent post-with CDC data-very good information. I do know a person who got Lyme disease (hiking in Northern Wisconsin), nasty stuff-it really knocked him out for a while and this guy is in very good athletic shape. Stay safe hiking.
    "I told my Ma's and Pa's I was coming to them mountains and they acted as if they was gutshot. Ma, I sez's, them mountains is the marrow of the world and by God, I was right". Del Gue

  14. #34
    double d's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-10-2007
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trailmercury View Post
    I am a practicing family physician in Vilas county in northern Wisconsin.
    Lyme Disease education and diagnosis/treatment is a significant part of my practice in the warmer months.
    Based on the most recent research conducted by the University of Wisconsin, the nymphal deer tick carries the borrelia bacteria at a rate of 30-35% in our county
    so basically 1/3 of the deer ticks around here are vectors for the disease.
    Definitely significant to me and the patients of the community I serve.
    Thank you for the data and information-as you of course experience this issue on a regular basis-many people spend a lot of time in the outdoors of Northern Wisconsin.
    "I told my Ma's and Pa's I was coming to them mountains and they acted as if they was gutshot. Ma, I sez's, them mountains is the marrow of the world and by God, I was right". Del Gue

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    sure, fair enough if you want to count less than 5 cases in 10 years as being seen in the state, which i guess technically it has been.

    so, serious question for the cautious types- if you were to go hiking in colorado, which has reported 3 cases of lyme since 2005 and none since 2010, would you still do the head to toe clothing soaked in chemicals thing?
    I'm not really a cautious type, but given the potential for a variety of illnesses from ticks, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever being one of a few to avoid in CO, I would probably use easily available protection from them either via Deet or clothing based repellent.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    11-01-2014
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdoczi View Post
    . . .mostly i'm fascinated by the (over) reactions people have towards various "dangers" in the world. . .
    Point deeply appreciated.

    The best part is the increased dangers people put themselves into to avoid perceived dangers that are functionally irrelevant.

    Toxic chemicals to avoid low risk bugs as suggested in your earlier post,

    Guns to protect ourselves from bears or other people when our own guns are more dangerous to us than the perceived dangers of bad people or animals. . . For you gun enthusiasts out there, I concede that a person that is well trained and regularly trains and manages their gun in a safe way may be an exception. However, I have met very, very, few gut toting people that have used and trained enough in relevant situations or practiced frequently enough to have carrying a gun truly be a net safety advantage instead of a disadvantage. . . and, I use guns, mostly for fun, but sure as heck don't carry them for personal protection. . . for that I wear good shoes and practice a firm, non-confrontational tongue.

    What other silly things do people do that increase danger to themselves in trying to be safe?
    I'm not lost. I'm exploring.

  17. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nsherry61 View Post

    What other silly things do people do that increase danger to themselves in trying to be safe?
    Driving to the trailhead.

  18. #38

    Default

    Taking preventative measures to reduce your risk of contracting a tick-borne disease is really important.

    Tick-borne diseases are certainly one of the most significant health risks on the A.T. Lyme is the most prevalent disease, but A.T. hikers have also contracted erlichiosis, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and anaplasmosis (which can be fatal if not treated), and are potentially at risk for other tick-borne diseases. Northern Virginia to southern New England have traditionally been the area with the most reports, but hikers have reported contracting Lyme in every state. Virginia especially seems to be having more cases. The area around Pearisburg seems to be a relatively new hot spot, and if you look at the CDC map linked above, you'll see there is a high concentration from around Pearisburg down toward Damascus.

    The good news is there are things you can do to greatly reduce or potentially eliminate the your risk by doing the following:

    • Do thorough tick checks daily, and immediately after passing through prime tick territory (after walking directly through vegetation). Carry fine-point tweezers and a mirror for those hard-to see places
    • Avoid sitting directly on logs or leaf litter where ticks thrive (sit on a pad or tarp)
    • Wear permethrin-treated clothing--including socks, gaiters, hats, buffs, etc. Purchasing pre-treated clothing is the cheapest and most convenient in the long run if you are outside a lot. You can also send your clothing away to InsectShield.com -- $9.95/per piece (or for a pair of socks), and it lasts for 70 washings. Factory treated clothing may be more effective at repelling ticks--certainly in the long term. The chemical bonds more tightly to the fabric with a high-heat process at the factory. Spraying can be a hassle, especially when hiking - you need a well-ventilated area protected from wind and rain, and time for the chemical to dry.
    • Spray pack, boots and possibly tent. (Permethrin won't adhere to non-porous fabrics/materials)
    • Tuck light-colored pants into socks and light-colored shirt into pants


    I'm just waiting for some very attractive or immensely popular hiker to start wearing their long pants tucked into their socks who's big on Facebook and Instagram to make these a sexy new trend. Or is there someone out there I've missed?

    By the way, long-distance hikers are especially vulnerable to tick-borne disease for some of these reasons:

    • they are exposed for extended periods during peak Lyme season in prime areas -- weeks or months on end in the mid-Atlantic and southern New England in mid-May through July
    • it's challenging to do thorough tick checks in hard-to-see and hard-to-reach spots that ticks are especially fond of if you are hiking solo (as most long-distance hikers are)
    • hikers have infrequent access to showers and well-lit bathrooms with mirrors (showers are good for washing off unattached ticks, but won't dislodge a tick that's already attached)
    • hikers are often extremely tired at the end of the day, and it's easy to skip the tick check if you didn't see any ticks (but deer tick nymphs are very tiny--about the size of a speck of dirt)
    • some symptoms of Lyme are similar the everyday aches and pains that experience on a thru-hike
    • long pants (either treated and/or tucked in socks) or bug pants over shorts may not be viewed as an attractive option, especially in hot, humid weather
    • a long-distance hiker's immune systems may be compromised by months of extreme exertion combined with poor diet and inadequate sleep
    • thru-hikers become "experts" on many other aspects of gear and hiking after a couple of months of hiking through areas and times of low risk, and may feel confident they have the knowledge and gear they need. They aren't seeing ticks or hearing about tick-borne illness. The area and time of high risk creeps up on them gradually, and they may be complacent or uninformed about the risks when this happens.


    I encourage everyone to view the Appalachian Trail Conservancy's website and the videos posted there at www.appalachiantrail.org/health and do additional research on websites including the CDC and Tickencounter.org.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-04-2011
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Age
    57
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trailmercury View Post
    I am a practicing family physician in Vilas county in northern Wisconsin.
    Lyme Disease education and diagnosis/treatment is a significant part of my practice in the warmer months.
    Based on the most recent research conducted by the University of Wisconsin, the nymphal deer tick carries the borrelia bacteria at a rate of 30-35% in our county
    so basically 1/3 of the deer ticks around here are vectors for the disease.
    Definitely significant to me and the patients of the community I serve.
    I'm curious to know who you think gets it - what type of outdoor type, or does it matter. Is it people who consider themselves traditional outdoorsmen - hunters, fisher, loggers, family front country campers as compared to someone who considers them self a backpacker, i.e. premise being that a backpacker may put more thought or preparation into avoiding the vector?

  20. #40

    Default

    Lyme Disease is NOT a tick only transferred bacterial disease. The bacteria associated with Lyme Disease can be carried by spiders, fleas, mites, and mosquitos.

    There's much more that one can do to prevent Lyme Disease than applying insect repellents.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •