Tick bites are nearly double already this year. Will this summer be the worst yet?
But, is it the worst ever?
University of Rhode Island entomologist Dr. Thomas 'The TickGuy' Mathers told The Independent that it's too early to call it but the numbers are looking worrying — he's received more submissions of nymphal blacklegged ticks, which carry Lyme disease, to the university's TickSpotters platform so far this month than the weekly average for the same period over the last decade.
'I don't know the answer just yet, if it's a trend going up – but I suspect it is, just based on the number of nymphal blacklegged ticks I've seen in the past couple of weeks,' he explained.
Mathers noted that federal data shows emergency room visits related to ticks are up this year, with visits nearly doubling from 70 in April, to 131 in May.
Other researchers who also count ticks are noticing a significant jump in specimens.
Dr. Saravanan Thangamani, a professor at New York's SUNY Upstate Medical University who runs the Upstate Tick Testing Laboratory, has warned that more ticks are being sent to the lab than at the same time last year, marking a 217 percent increase.
'Based on the trend in tick submission I have observed thus far, I expect a tick season that is worse than the previous years,' he cautioned.
But, Rutgers University professor and entomologist Dina Fonseca is not ready to make that call quite yet. She's a part of the submission project called New Jersey Ticks 4 Science!
She said people say it's the worst year for ticks every year, noting there's no standardized tick surveillance. They're seeing more submissions, as well, but they don't know if it's just because more people are reporting them.
'Frankly, we don't have enough data over time to be able to say, 'Is it a worse year than normal or a better year than normal?' We don't know,' explained Fonseca.
What threats do US ticks pose?
Whatever the case may be, the heightened activity between June and July leaves Americans exposed to 90 species of ticks and the diseases they can carry. Although ticks are on both coasts, they're largely found in the eastern U.S. Some, like brown dog ticks and blacklegged ticks, are located more widely.
Not being prepared for ticks while doing outside activities and camping could carry a death sentence — although that's an extremely rare outcome.
People bitten by ticks may be exposed to Powassan virus, Babesiosis, Anaplasmosis, Tularemia, Lyme disease, and other pathogens that can cause human disease. People can be affected by multiple diseases at once.
The nymphal blacklegged ticks are the ones Fonseca says people really need to worry about, as they can be infected with four different disease agents. That includes Lyme disease, which may lead to facial paralysis and irregular heartbeat if untreated.
Although larger than larval ticks, nymphal ticks are only the size of a poppy seed. They may be hard to spot – even for people who are aware of their region's ticks and where they live.
'Look at the bowtie of Lincoln on a penny; that's the size of a nymphal blacklegged tick, Fonseca said.
Exposure and prevention
While it's easy to miss ticks, it can take about two days for any transmission to occur after a bite. People who find ticks on their skin should remove them with tweezers as soon as possible. Those who develop a rash or fever after removal should consult a doctor.
As far as prevention goes, knowledge is power. Reducing exposure is the best way to avoid negative health outcomes. Mather advises that people follow what he calls the 'three Ts.' Wear tight clothing, tuck in shirts and pants legs, and wear clothes treated with 0.5 percent permethrin repellent.
'If you don't apply repellent, they can be ruthless,' Fonseca said, recalling a time when she picked 30-to-40 ticks out of her hair. Mathers remembers a trip to Fire Island that resulted in the exposure to 'literally hundreds' of fast-crawling ticks.
Unfortunately, with a changing climate comes additional chances to pick up the blood-sucking hitchhikers. With a warmer atmosphere comes a wetter world, and parasites thrive in those conditions, and ticks have been observed moving north. Southern aridity is their enemy.
'One of the easiest ways to kill a tick is to dry the heck out of them,' said Fonseca.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: The 3 nicknames that mean your relationship is doomed to fail - so, are YOU guilty of using them?
Whether its 'snookums', 'cutie patootie' or 'babycakes', many couples have pet names they call each other behind closed doors. But three nicknames could mean your relationship is doomed to fail, an expert has warned. While some monikers convey warmth, reassurance and affection, others can act as 'emotional wallpaper'. Dr Mark Travers, an American psychologist with degrees from Cornell University and the University of Colorado Boulder, has revealed the names that should be ringing alarm bells. BABY/BABE 'Being called "baby" or "babe" early on in a relationship can feel comforting, but that sense of warmth can be misleading,' he wrote on Psychology Today. He warned pet names like this can simulate intimacy before it's truly earned. 'Affectionate language triggers oxytocin, the brain's bonding hormone, which makes us feel emotionally close even in the absence of trust or consistency. You may start to feel attached to someone who's never actually shown you their emotional world,' he said. SWEETHEART The nickname 'sweetheart' could also be used as a way to dismiss your worries rather than dealing with them, he explained. 'Instead of engaging with your concerns, a partner might respond with: "You overthink everything, sweetheart. Don't worry that pretty head of yours,"' he said. 'These responses may sound affectionate, but they can make you feel like you're overreacting for even bringing something up. 'Essentially, they minimize your emotions and shift the focus away from the issue at hand.' This is a form of 'emotional infantilisation', he added – treating you as if you're too irrational or too fragile to be taken seriously. Previous studies have found that this kind of infantilisation – especially in conjunction with affectionate language – was the strongest predictor of negative mental health outcomes. He suggested asking yourself if nicknames show up most when you express discomfort or your needs – or if affection is being used to avoid real emotional work. ANGEL Pet names can sometimes be used to deflect the real issue rather than resolve it, Dr Travers said. 'After a conflict, instead of addressing the issue, there might be a flood of endearments,' he said. For example, 'Angel, don't be mad'. 'These words may sound sweet, but they often act as emotional distractions, soothing the partner's discomfort rather than engaging with real underlying problems,' he explained. 'This is also called emotional appeasement—using affection to avoid emotional responsibility.' He warned that while pet names may provide temporary emotional relief, they can 'sidestep the deeper work required to build genuine intimacy'. However, he added: 'Not all pet names are manipulative. 'In fact, in emotionally healthy relationships, they often reflect genuine affection and tenderness and can even help de-escalate tension. 'The key difference lies in intention and timing.' WHEN YOU SHOULD BREAK UP WITH YOUR PARTNER Kale Monk, assistant professor of human development and family science at University of Missouri says on-off relationships are associated with higher rates of abuse, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment. People in these kinds of relationships should make informed decisions about either staying together once and for all or terminating their relationship. Here are his top five tips to work out whether it's the right time to end your relationship – 1. When considering rekindling a relationship that ended or avoiding future breakups, partners should think about the reasons they broke up to determine if there are consistent or persistent issues impacting the relationship. 2. Having explicit conversations about issues that have led to break ups can be helpful, especially if the issues will likely reoccur. If there was ever violence in the relationship, however, or if having a conversation about relationship issues can lead to safety concerns, consider seeking support-services when it is safe to do so. 3. Similar to thinking about the reasons the relationship ended, spend time thinking about the reasons why reconciliation might be an option. Is the reason rooted in commitment and positive feelings, or more about obligations and convenience? The latter reasons are more likely to lead down a path of continual distress. 4. Remember that it is okay to end a toxic relationship. For example, if your relationship is beyond repair, do not feel guilty leaving for your mental or physical well-being. 5. Couples therapy or relationship counselling is not just for partners on the brink of divorce. Even happy dating and married couples can benefit from 'relationship check-ups' in order to strengthen the connection between partners and have additional support in approaching relationship transitions.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Can you see circles or rectangles? And does the answer depend on where you grew up?
Do people from different cultures and environments see the world differently? Two recent studies have different takes on this decades-long controversy. The answer might be more complicated, and more interesting, than either study suggests. One study, led by Ivan Kroupin at the London School of Economics, asked how people from different cultures perceived a visual illusion known as the Coffer illusion. They discovered that people in the UK and US saw it mainly in one way, as comprising rectangles – while people from rural communities in Namibia typically saw it another way: as containing circles. To explain these differences, Kroupin and colleagues appeal to a hypothesis raised more than 60 years ago and argued about ever since. The idea is that people in western industrialised countries (these days known by the acronym 'weird' – for western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic – a summary that is increasingly questionable) see things in a specific way because they are generally exposed to highly 'carpentered' environments, with lots of straight lines, right angles – visual features common in western architecture. By contrast, people from non-'weird' societies – like those in rural Namibia – inhabit environments with fewer sharp lines and angular geometric forms, so their visual abilities will be tuned differently. The study argues that the tendency of rural Namibians to see circles rather than rectangles in the Coffer illusion is due to their environments being dominated by structures such as round huts instead of angular environments. They back up this conclusion with similar results from several other visual illusions, all supposedly tapping into basic brain mechanisms involved in visual perception. So far, so good for the cross-cultural perceptual psychologists, and for the 'carpentered world' hypothesis. The second study, by Dorsa Amir and Chaz Firestone, takes a sledgehammer to this hypothesis, but for the much better-known illusion: the Müller-Lyer illusion. Two lines of equal length seem to be different lengths because of the context provided by inward-pointing, compared with outward-pointing, arrowheads. It's a very powerful illusion. I've seen it on thousands of occasions and it works every time for me. There are many explanations for why the Müller-Lyer illusion is so effective. One of the more popular is that the arrowheads are interpreted by the brain as cues about three-dimensional depth, so our brains implicitly interpret the illusion as representing an object of some kind, with right angles and straight lines. This explanation fits neatly with the 'carpentered world' hypothesis – and indeed a lot of early support for this hypothesis relied on apparent cultural variability in how the Müller-Lyer illusion is perceived. In their study, Amir and Firestone carefully and convincingly dismantle this explanation. They point out that non-human animals experience the illusion, as shown in a range of studies in which animals (including guppies, pigeons and bearded dragons) are trained to prefer the longer of two lines, and then presented with the Müller-Lyer image. They show that it works without straight lines, and for touch as well as vision. They note that it even works for people who until recently have been blind, referencing an astonishing experiment in which nine children, blind from birth because of dense cataracts, were shown the illusion immediately after the cataracts were surgically removed. Not only had these children not seen highly carpentered environments – they hadn't seen anything at all. After you absorb their analysis, it's pretty clear that the Müller-Lyer illusion is not due to culturally specific exposure to carpentry. Why the discrepancy? There are several possibilities. Perhaps there are reasons why cross-cultural variability should be expected for the Coffer but not the Müller-Lyer illusion (one possibility here is that the Coffer illusion is based on how people pay attention to things, rather than on some more basic aspect of perception). It could also be that there are systematic differences in perception between cultures, but that the 'carpentered world' hypothesis is not the correct explanation. It's also worth noting that the Kroupin study has some potential weaknesses. For example, the UK/US and Namibian participants were exposed to the illusions using very different methods. All in all, the jury remains out and – favourite scientist punt coming up – 'more research is needed'. The notion that people from different cultures vary in how they experience things is certainly plausible. There's a wealth of evidence that as we grow up our brains are shaped, at least to some extent, by features of our environments. And just as we all differ in our externally visible characteristics – height, body shape and so on – we will all differ on the inside too. As the author Anaïs Nin put it in quoting the Talmud: 'We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.' For me, an important implication of this line of thought is that there are likely to be substantial differences in perception within 'groups' as well as between them. This will probably hold however these 'groups' are defined, whether as different cultures or as a contrast between 'neurotypical' and 'neurodivergent' people. I believe that paying more attention to within-group perceptual diversity will help us to better interpret the differences we do find between groups, and equip us with the tools needed to resist relying on simple cultural stereotypes as explanations. More research is needed here too. But it's on the way. In the Perception Census, a project led by my research group at the University of Sussex together with professor Fiona Macpherson at the University of Glasgow, we are studying how perception differs in a large sample of about 40,000 people from more than 100 countries. Our experiment includes not just one or two visual illusions but more than 50 different experiments probing many different aspects of perception. When we're done analysing the data, we hope to deliver a uniquely detailed picture of how people experience their world, both within and between cultures. We'll also make the data openly available for other researchers to explore new ideas in this important area. One critical insight lies behind all these questions. How things seem is not how they are. For each of us, it might seem as though we see the world exactly as it is; as if our senses are transparent windows through with the world pours itself directly into our mind. But how things are is very different. The objective world no doubt exists, but the world we experience is always an active construction, a kind of 'controlled hallucination' in which the brain uses sensory signals to update and calibrate its best interpretation of what's going on. What we experience is this interpretation, not a 'readout' of the sensory information. For me, this is the key insight that underlies any claim about perceptual diversity. When we take it fully on board, it encourages a much-needed humility about our own ways of seeing. We live in perceptual echo chambers, just as we do in those of social media, and the first step to escaping any echo chamber is to realise that you're in one. Anil Seth is a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, and author of the Sunday Times bestseller Being You: A New Science of Consciousness
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Forgetfulness or early dementia? How to decipher your memory loss
Illustrations by James Yates At some point, we've all strode into a room with purpose and proceeded to completely forget what we were about to do. 'It's a very common complaint,' confirms Prof Scott Small, director of the Alzheimer's Disease Research Centre at Columbia University, who has studied memory for more than three decades. It used to be thought that a forgetful blip like this served no purpose and was simply a malfunction in our memory machinery, but now we know otherwise. Our memory machinery comprises several stages: our short-term and long-term memory, as well as our ability to save and recall memories. Prof Small uses the analogy of a computer to explain how we remember and forget: 'If you type something into a document and don't save it, it's gone forever – that's your short-term memory,' he says. 'If you click save, that transfers information from the short-term memory to the long-term memory. 'The other function is to be able to come back to your computer, or brain, and recall what was talked about the day before. For this, you need to have the 'open' function to be able to sift through all your memories and choose the right one.' Rather than a glitch in this hardwiring, forgetting is a healthy and necessary part of our brain's normal functioning and is vital for our creativity and mental health, as Prof Small explains in his book Forgetting, The New Science of Memory. Not only does forgetting clear cognitive bandwidth and ensure our brains are not overwhelmed with irrelevant information, but 'emotional forgetting' is also necessary to move past traumatic experiences. Though, there is a catch. As well as normal forgetting, there is also what Prof Small refers to as 'pathological forgetting' – the type that we are right to worry about. Typically caused by neurodegenerative disorders, it indicates a worsening of memory that impacts our ability to live our life fully. 'If you notice worsening of your memory over time from your own baseline, that's probably pathological forgetting, such as Alzheimer's.' Here, Prof Small shares his expertise on common examples of forgetting to distinguish which fall into the normal category and which could be an early sign of Alzheimer's. 'However, the ultimate diagnosis is when you see a doctor,' he notes. I've gone upstairs and forgotten why 'That's a super common complaint,' Prof Small says. 'This symptom alone tells me that it's probably the hippocampus, as that's the structure of the brain that's critical for memory.' The hippocampus is the 'save' button on your computer, transferring information from temporary to long-term. 'If that's always happened to you, it's normal forgetting.' Like height and weight, normal forgetting is a trait that varies between us and it's nothing to worry about if it remains consistent. However, if you're increasingly catching yourself uncertain about what you're doing mid-task, it could be an early indicator of pathological forgetting, which can be a result of cognitive ageing (forgetting that occurs as part of the normal ageing process) or Alzheimer's, Prof Small says. 'This symptom alone is not enough for me to say whether it's the earliest stages of Alzheimer's or if it's just cognitive ageing,' he notes. 'A rule of thumb in medicine is, if you experience something that really disturbs your life, it might be worth seeing a doctor. But, on its own, forgetting why you've gone upstairs doesn't declare itself as a disorder that's worth seeing a doctor for.' I'm getting names mixed up If you've forgotten or mixed up the name of someone you met a couple of times many years ago, it's nothing to worry about, Prof Small says. If you've forgotten the name of a loved one as a one-off, it's also not a cause for concern. 'It may be a bad night's sleep or stress,' he notes. 'But if someone's frequently forgetting the names of loved ones, people in their inner circle, it's time to see a doctor,' he says. It indicates a memory problem and could be a sign of Alzheimer's, he says. Similarly, if you forget the name of your prime minister or president, that's more concerning than if you forget the name of your local MP, Prof Small says. I can't remember how to make my favourite recipe 'If someone forgets a recipe that they've been making over and over again, I'm starting to worry about a disease,' Prof Small says. 'It sounds like Alzheimer's.' The memory decline that occurs with age doesn't affect our memory 'hard drive', where we store key pieces of information that we use regularly, like a favourite recipe. However, Alzheimer's does. 'It spreads to areas of the memory store, memory retrieval and recall, while ageing does not,' Prof Small says. 'The example of the recipe sounds like Alzheimer's because it's not the 'save' function of our brain,' which is used for new memories, he notes. Instead, it signals a problem with the memory hard drive. I got lost on a route I've done a million times Whilst forgetting why you walked into a room or the name of someone you only vaguely know is likely innocuous, Prof Small says that getting lost is a sign of something more serious. 'If someone tells me that they've forgotten where they've parked their car or if they've gotten lost while driving to work, that's a red flag,' he says. 'I start thinking, maybe this is Alzheimer's.' One way to think about the hippocampus is as a circuit made up of different regions that are all interconnected, Prof Small explains. The area responsible for spatial memory is the region where Alzheimer's takes hold. 'So when I hear people complain about getting lost, I start thinking more about Alzheimer's disease,' he says. I asked my husband a question but can't remember the answer five minutes later Forgetting information that we've just been told happens to all of us, Prof Small says. It could be poor attention or, if it's always in relation to your husband, there could be psychological reasons why you're not focusing on what he's saying, he notes. As a result, this falls into normal forgetting but, if it's becoming more frequent, this could be a worrying symptom. What can we do to protect our memory? There are many risk factors that increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, including obesity, poor heart health, high blood pressure and cholesterol and diabetes, Prof Small says. 'That doesn't mean these factors alone will cause Alzheimer's but, if you're going to get it, these may accelerate it,' he explains. In addition, there are certain genes that are associated with Alzheimer's, most famously Apolipoprotein E (APOE), and a family history also raises the risk. While these can't be changed, living a healthy lifestyle has been shown to benefit brain health and reduce the risk of dementia. 'Exercise seems to be a very strong influencer of maintaining our memory health into late life,' Prof Small notes. Meanwhile, his own research has found that eating a diet rich in flavanols, compounds found in apples, berries and tea, amongst other fruits and vegetables, also protects brain health. Scientists are also racing to find medicines to ward off memory-robbing diseases. 'Where we are in the field is trying to develop statins for the brain,' Prof Small says. To do that, researchers need to understand the mechanisms that are causing Alzheimer's, with the brain's immune network and system for moving proteins around our cells (known as the trafficking pathway) under investigation. So far, development has focused on drugs that work by clearing proteins called amyloid from the brain, which have been shown to disrupt neuron function. However, these have so far been blocked for use on the NHS due to their cost (estimated to be £30,000 per patient per course of treatment) and worries over side effects. 'The next generation of drugs are trying to target either the immune response or the trafficking pathway,' he explains. 'Once the biomedical enterprise has a target, where the field at large is so sophisticated, we should be optimistic that we will have a way to intervene,' Prof Small says. 'It could mean that in a year we'll have effective new drugs that target the pathways that I and others believe will be more beneficial than anti-amyloid drugs. It could take a few years but I don't think it's going to take decades. 'I think we're on the cusp of really translating all the remarkable discoveries that happened in the first 20 years of this century into meaningful therapeutics.'
