logo
How to protect yourself from ticks year-round

How to protect yourself from ticks year-round

Independenta day ago

Ticks can be active in any season and it's important to check for and remove the bloodsuckers as quickly as possible — especially after you've been outside hiking, gardening or enjoying nature.
'Humans are outside more in summer so we hear about more tick infections,' said Sam Telford, an infectious diseases expert at Tufts University. But he urges caution year-round because 'every season is tick season.'
While tick populations vary a lot regionally, some Northeastern states including Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are seeing 'above average' numbers of American dog ticks this year, said Telford.
And New York state is seeing a higher number of reported deer tick bites this year than last year, said Saravanan Thangamani, who studies tick-borne diseases at SUNY Upstate Medical University.
How ticks can spread disease
Ticks, like mosquitos, need to feed on blood. But instead of a quick prick, they are slow feeders – with hooked mouth parts that attach into the skin of deer, rabbits, dogs and people.
There are many different species of ticks found globally and only some spread germs that can make people sick. A main worry is blacklegged ticks, also called deer ticks, which can spread Lyme disease. Once found mainly in New England and pockets of the Midwest, the ticks are now present over a wider range.
A tick bite doesn't always lead to illness. 'If you remove a tick within 24 hours of attachment, it's fairly unlikely that you will get infected,' said Telford.
How to check for ticks
Ticks are usually found low to the ground, in leaf litter or grassy areas.
Check your clothing for ticks and do a full-body check including under the arms and behind ears, knees and hair.
'If you're out all day long, try to do a quick check for ticks every few hours,' said Bobbi Pritt at the Mayo Clinic. 'When you go back inside, take a shower. That will wash off any unattached ticks, and you're also more likely to spot any other ticks."
Use tweezers to remove the tick and grasp it as close to the skin as possible to pull from the head. If you don't have them handy, you can also use your fingernails, the edge of a credit card or any semi-sharp object.
How to keep ticks away
The best approach is to minimize tick exposure altogether.
Bug sprays containing ingredients such as DEET can be sprayed on exposed skin to ward off ticks and mosquitos, said Telford.
Wear long sleeves and pants, and you can also spray clothing with repellents containing permethrin, a chemical similar to a natural ingredient in chrysanthemums that makes ticks avoid the flowers.
Protect your pets from ticks
Don't forget to pay attention to outdoor pets. Medications can prevent fleas and ticks from attaching to a dog's skin. But it's still a good idea to check the fur after being outside.
'Wherever pets can't easily groom themselves, that's where the ticks will be – on the ears, around the muzzle area, under the collar, between the toes,' said Thangamani.
Dogs and cats roaming outdoors can also bring ticks into the house.
'If pets bring ticks in, a tick can live in the house for months until it finds its next blood meal,' which could be another household member, he said.
What to do after a tick bite
After removing the tick, keep an eye on the skin around the bite. If a rash or flu-like symptoms appear within several days or weeks, see a doctor.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend tick testing because results may not be reliable.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I'm a nutritionist - here are three foods you need to eat to boost your sex drive
I'm a nutritionist - here are three foods you need to eat to boost your sex drive

Daily Mail​

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

I'm a nutritionist - here are three foods you need to eat to boost your sex drive

Many factors can affect sex drive, but what you eat can be more important than you think when it comes to getting steamy in the bedroom. Oysters, pumpkin seeds and chickpeas are the ultimate foods to boost your libido, a leading nutritionist has revealed. 'Sexual appetite is closely linked to overall health, and certain foods can help support normal hormone levels, blood flow, and energy—all key factors in maintaining a healthy sex drive,' says Lily Keeling, a nutritionist for healthy meal delivery firm Green Chef. So if your love life is feeling a little lacklustre, your diet could be to blame. Zinc-rich foods like oysters, pumpkin seeds, and chickpeas are especially important, as the nutrient is essential for testosterone production. And it's not just men that need to prevent their testosterone levels from getting low, the hormone is also key for women wanting to increase sexual desire. Zinc is also thought to increase dopamine levels, which can enhance feelings of pleasure. Oysters are famously an aphrodisiac and contain omega-3 fatty acids. This can improve blood flow to the sexual organs, which can help with issues like erectile dysfunction. Pumpkin seeds also contain the essential fat as well as magnesium which make for an added bonus for increasing your blood flow. They are packed with antioxidants like vitamin E which help protect sperm and the prostate from cell damage. Meanwhile, chickpeas can boost sex drive due to its B6 properties. The vitamin is known to regulate testosterone, but it also produces the 'feel-good' hormone dopamine which can increase desire and arousal. It also contains a plant-based chemical known as phytoestrogens, which is said to mimic the effects of estrogen. This can be especially helpful for menopausal women who experience low sex drive as a symptom of their declining estrogen levels.

Who is in charge at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
Who is in charge at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

The Guardian

time4 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Who is in charge at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

Who is in charge at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)? The answer is more complicated than it may seem. With no confirmed or acting CDC director, Robert F Kennedy Jr has direct control over the agency, allowing him to sign off – or not – on vaccine recommendations, according to legal experts. Yet Kennedy, the secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), testified before a Senate committee in May that someone else is running the agency – creating confusion that could lead to legal challenges. 'There's not a CDC director or acting director. Essentially, RFK Jr is the director of the CDC,' said Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Kennedy now has 'a lot more opportunity to actually influence the outcome of these decisions and to take actions in the absence of a Senate-confirmed director', said Renée Landers, professor and director of the health law program at Suffolk University Law School in Boston. The dismissal of 17 independent vaccine advisers and their replacement with less experienced advisers, some of whom have histories of anti-vaccine activism, is 'very concerning', especially given Kennedy's rejection of germ theory and his own anti-vaccine activism, Landers said. On Thursday, the independent vaccine advisers appointed by Kennedy voted to ban thimerosal, a preservative (also known as thiomersal) with a demonstrated safety record, from 4% of flu vaccines in the US. The remaining 96% of flu vaccines, as well as all other childhood vaccines, were already free of thimerosal out of an abundance of caution, despite decades of research indicating the preservative's safety. The move will make it harder for some people to access the flu vaccine. The recommendation would normally be taken up by the CDC director, either to reject, or to implement as official, guidance from the agency. But for now, those decisions go directly to Kennedy, who has already exercised these capabilities before. On 13 May, 'with pending confirmation of a new CDC Director', the health secretary adopted the recommendations for Chikungunya vaccines to be officially recommended by the CDC, according to the agency's website. Kennedy did not sign off on the committee's votes for two other vaccines against RSV and meningitis. Those vaccines, recommended in April by the independent advisers whom Kennedy dismissed this month, still have not gotten official CDC recommendations; it's not clear whether or when they will. Kennedy also recently directed the CDC to change its Covid vaccine recommendations, softening the recommendation for children and ending it for pregnant people entirely, despite strong evidence that pregnancy is a major risk factor for severe illness and death. 'It is concerning that the power vacuum leaves open his ability to make these decisions that are inconsistent with scientific consensus,' Landers said. Congress introduced a new law in 2023 that directors of the CDC must now undergo Senate confirmation. This appointment is the first time the CDC director has gone through the process. 'It is a little bit of uncharted waters,' Landers said. David Weldon was first nominated and then withdrawn hours before his Senate confirmation hearing in March. Susan Monarez served as acting director from 23 January until she was nominated on 24 March, at which point she stepped down. Once someone has been nominated for director, they cannot serve as acting director. Monarez testified in her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, but it's not clear when lawmakers will vote on the nomination, In the absence of an acting director, the head of HHS has control of the agency, according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. Signing off – or not – on CDC recommendations cannot be 'delegated down' to other officials under the vacancies act, said Anne Joseph O'Connell, a professor at Stanford Law School; 'it can only go up' to the HHS secretary. 'What's unusual about this situation is that we generally think having exclusive duties go 'up' to the agency head when there is a lower-level vacancy is a good thing. But here many don't trust the secretary on these matters,' O'Connell said. Kennedy put forth a different name for who is in charge of the CDC in May testimony before the Senate's health, education, labor and pensions committee. 'Who is the acting CDC director?' Lisa Blunt Rochester, the Democratic senator from Delaware, asked. 'The acting director was Susan Monarez, but she is now up for permanent director, so she's been replaced by Matt Buzzelli,' Kennedy said, describing Buzzelli as 'a public health expert'. But there's no indication that Buzzelli, a lawyer who is listed as chief of staff in the office of the CDC director, is acting director, nor is he qualified for the position. 'Buzzelli cannot be the acting CDC head,' O'Connell said. He's not the first assistant to the CDC director, he's not Senate-confirmed, and he did not serve 90 days in the year before the last director of the CDC left, O'Connell said: 'There is no wiggle room.' The lack of clarity is compounded by the Trump administration's non-compliance with information requirements, experts said. The CDC, along with other agencies, is required to update each year an office of personnel management site about who holds which jobs, a deadline the agencies missed in March. Buzzelli 'has been carrying out some of the duties of the CDC Director as the Senior Official, as necessary, and is surrounded by highly qualified medical professionals and advisors to help fulfill these duties as appropriate', Andrew Nixon, HHS director of communications, told Stat News in May. (HHS did not respond to the Guardian's media inquiry.) Such actions could open the officials up to legal challenges. Without official documentation naming Buzzelli and other decision-makers to official positions, they would not have the designated authority to make certain decisions, which means their actions could be challenged. For instance, they may not be authorized to enter into new contracts or end prior agreements early with state, local, tribal and territorial governments – potentially opening up any such actions to lawsuits. 'The person who takes the action has to be someone lawfully appointed to the position. To the extent that agencies try to skirt that kind of requirement, it does leave the decisions vulnerable to legal challenge,' Landers said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store