posted
I have noticed over the years that it's mostly white/caucasian people that get stricken with Lyme Disease. Is there a reason behind this. Any studies behind it. Anyone else notice this? I find it puzzling.
Posts: 995 | From somewhere out there | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- No, it is not "mostly caucasions" who get lyme.
Lyme knows no color boundaries. Ticks are drawn to humans who breathe - it's the CO2 that attracts them.
So many go undiagnosed so any surveys can be very much off.
Though online sites such as this, we are all the same color / all colors, so to speak, if one is judging by attendance at advocacy events, there are many location and economic factors that can skew perception of population.
Yet, it's really that so many are undiagnosed. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would guess that it is because minorities are far more likely to live in urbanized areas in which there are less natural habitation spots for ticks.
Posts: 173 | From USA | Registered: Aug 2015
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- It's not clear just who "minorities" are but whether urban or rural, we all need to know that ticks can be anywhere and be aware to take precautions while still enjoying nature as part of our existence and experience.
Ticks don't separate out people by any classification or locale, really.
Sure, if one spends more time in wooded areas or green spaces, there can more opportunity to get a questing tick to reach out from leaves or blades of grass and hop a ride on a person or pet.
Still, anywhere birds fly (or land) or critters scamper about, ticks can be whether the forests, rural, suburban neighborhoods (or back yards), or city locales such as parks or even balconies.
Best not to keep bird feeders close to any dwelling, by the way. -
[ 02-02-2018, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Keebler ]
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those with darker skin might be less likely to see a rash .. IF they were lucky enough to get an EM rash.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96222 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- That is true.
Those with a tattoo are also more at risk for not seeing both ticks and potential rashes if they are on tattooed skin.
Some of the nymph ticks are just so tiny it's hard for anyone to see. And many won't know what they are, either.
I've had my share of regular sized attached ticks I pulled off from childhood and into adulthood (long before I heard of lyme).
But for these TINY ones - most likely, I had three on my hairline for days and did not know what they were until years later. I tried to pull them off to no avail. I had no idea at the time what I would be in for.
Within days, I became bed ridden at that time for a year (and still sick long beyond) but still had no idea why. It would be four years after that before positive tests showed lyme, HME & babesia. Still, even with tests, no treatment available, though due to the politics in my state.
They did fall off after a couple of days. I had been out for a walk in the woods that spring day but thought maybe those tiny bumps on my forehead were just bits of sap that maybe came from trees I had brushed up against. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Keebler: - It's not clear just who "minorities" are but whether urban or rural, we all need to know that ticks can be anywhere and be aware to take precautions while still enjoying nature as part of our existence and experience.
Ticks don't separate out people by any classification or locale, really.
Sure, if one spends more time in wooded areas or green spaces, there can more opportunity to get a questing tick to reach out from leaves or blades of grass and hop a ride on a person or pet.
Still, anywhere birds fly (or land) or critters scamper about, ticks can be whether the forests, rural, suburban neighborhoods (or back yards), or city locales such as parks or even balconies.
Best not to keep bird feeders close to any dwelling, by the way. -
I don't do politically correct, Im just telling you what the facts are. Yes there is a geographical distribution. Only 1 in 5 tick bites occurs in urban areas and within those urban areas, its mostly limited to urban parks and gardens. And the fewer ticks that bite in urban areas are less likely to carry Lyme disease too (also in this study). So does that mean that no urban people get Lyme? Of course not, but on a percentage basis, its a lot lower for communities that skew urban. And blacks and hispanics live in urban areas at much higher percentage of the population than whites. Another fact.
Posts: 173 | From USA | Registered: Aug 2015
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- You say: ". . . And the fewer ticks that bite in urban areas are less likely to carry Lyme disease too (also in this study)" end quote.
Statistically, infection rate among urban ticks vs. rural ticks does not seem logical. How are they testing these ticks? Or do they go by where those who are diagnosed tell them they likely got the tick bite at fault?
It would be nice to see that link or the study title and author's name to see how they determined their hypothesis.
Bird migration patterns (and some do go through cities) may hold some insights as might testing urban vs. rural squirrels -- and mice - might offer a clearer insight but no survey is able to determine "fact" of origin as ticks can really get around. -
[ 02-03-2018, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Keebler ]
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
This organization is tops in educational and awareness aspects and also good at conducting surveys and gathering others' research and putting it into perspective.
To the right at the top, see the RESEARCH tab for more detail. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Rumigirl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15091
posted
Of course, "non-white" people get TBD's!! I know a number of people myself, of many different races/ethnicities. As Keebler said, ticks know no such boundaries. A black teenage died suddenly of cardiac Lyme a few years back. And so on.
There are no records of such stuff anyway (how many people of what race tested positive).
And add in what Keebler said, the incredible degree of ignorance about TBD's. Sigh. And greater chance of not seeing a rash.
Posts: 3771 | From around | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Keebler: - You say: ". . . And the fewer ticks that bite in urban areas are less likely to carry Lyme disease too (also in this study)" end quote.
Statistically, infection rate among urban ticks vs. rural ticks does not seem logical. How are they testing these ticks? Or do they go by where those who are diagnosed tell them they likely got the tick bite at fault?
It would be nice to see that link or the study title and author's name to see how they determined their hypothesis.
Bird migration patterns (and some do go through cities) may hold some insights as might testing urban vs. rural squirrels -- and mice - might offer a clearer insight but no survey is able to determine "fact" of origin as ticks can really get around. -
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic