3 ms·

Lyme is essentially the poster child for an emerging disease related to climate change and human activity. It's an old organism in an ancient tick that had a h

Lyme is essentially the poster child for an emerging disease related to climate change and human activity. It's an old organism in an ancient tick that had a happy lifecycle of tick-mouse-tick-mouse-tick-deer-tick. Humans took the forest and the predators out of the picture and now the ticks and the deer proliferate at hugely increased rates, and now we're part of the lifecycle of this tick and the Borrelia organism.

lonelappde 7y ago
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?
- word-reader 7y ago
  Yes, big time, because their natural predators have been reduced along with reduced hunting. See [1] for more details about the deer issue in New York. The tick population in the Northeast is absolutely insane. I went camping in one of the "overabundance" areas in that link and killed no less than 10 ticks crawling on me and ripped another 5 or so out of my skin in about a 24-hour period. Compare this to a similar (well-hunted) forest in Texas where I've spent 5-10 days and seen approximately 3 ticks and been bitten once. [1]https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/104911.html https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/104911.html
- projektfu 7y ago
  I think it is hard to know before the appearance of people who might count, but the loss of the forest means that the deer are browsing suburban areas more and the ticks are becoming more prevalent. Clearly there are no longer any wolves or cougars in the Northeast and that affects predation. 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.
  - dreamcompiler 7y ago
    > more risk from wolves 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.
- gboss 7y ago
  There are definitely more deer than in the past. The elimination of natural predators and the decline of hunting have let their numbers explode. https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/ https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-need-to-cull-deer-herds/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-need...
eigenloss 7y ago
Deer are not the primary vector for ticks; they are outnumbered by a factor of 10-100 by white-footed mice and other small mammals. Those animals make the tick's lifecycle, well, tick. This is obviously a simplification; for more details, read in full Richard Ostfeld's "Lyme Disease: The Ecology of a Complex System." The loss of predators is undoubtedly connected, but it seems unlikely mainstream America will want foxes and wolves in their woods again. https://aspenn.com/lyme-disease-ecology-complex-system-richard-ostfeld/ https://aspenn.com/lyme-disease-ecology-complex-system-richa...
- swebs 7y ago
  I wouldn't mind foxes. They're pretty cute.
- projektfu 7y ago
  You're oversimplifying as well. What I am basically saying is that our management of our land has resulted in suburban prevalence of this disease through the growth of the deer population and its presence in the suburbs. This is not to say we can manage it back by eliminating deer. We may never eradicate Lyme from the suburbs.

lonelappde 7y ago

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?

word-reader 7y ago
Yes, big time, because their natural predators have been reduced along with reduced hunting. See [1] for more details about the deer issue in New York. The tick population in the Northeast is absolutely insane. I went camping in one of the "overabundance" areas in that link and killed no less than 10 ticks crawling on me and ripped another 5 or so out of my skin in about a 24-hour period. Compare this to a similar (well-hunted) forest in Texas where I've spent 5-10 days and seen approximately 3 ticks and been bitten once. [1]https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/104911.html https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/104911.html
projektfu 7y ago
I think it is hard to know before the appearance of people who might count, but the loss of the forest means that the deer are browsing suburban areas more and the ticks are becoming more prevalent. Clearly there are no longer any wolves or cougars in the Northeast and that affects predation. 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.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  > more risk from wolves 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.
gboss 7y ago
There are definitely more deer than in the past. The elimination of natural predators and the decline of hunting have let their numbers explode. https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/ https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-need-to-cull-deer-herds/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-need...

eigenloss 7y ago

Deer are not the primary vector for ticks; they are outnumbered by a factor of 10-100 by white-footed mice and other small mammals. Those animals make the tick's lifecycle, well, tick. This is obviously a simplification; for more details, read in full Richard Ostfeld's "Lyme Disease: The Ecology of a Complex System." The loss of predators is undoubtedly connected, but it seems unlikely mainstream America will want foxes and wolves in their woods again. https://aspenn.com/lyme-disease-ecology-complex-system-richard-ostfeld/ https://aspenn.com/lyme-disease-ecology-complex-system-richa...

swebs 7y ago
I wouldn't mind foxes. They're pretty cute.
projektfu 7y ago
You're oversimplifying as well. What I am basically saying is that our management of our land has resulted in suburban prevalence of this disease through the growth of the deer population and its presence in the suburbs. This is not to say we can manage it back by eliminating deer. We may never eradicate Lyme from the suburbs.