4 ms·
It's one of those "the risk goes up the longer it's attached" type things. I can't find studies, but I presume it looks like a bell curve. I know there's also
by fooqux 3y ago
It's one of those "the risk goes up the longer it's attached" type things. I can't find studies, but I presume it looks like a bell curve.
I know there's also a much higher risk of contracting diseases if you can't remove the tick in a careful way. If you smoosh it, or otherwise cause it enough distress that it regurgitates while still attached to you, that will also increase your chances.
If you live in tick areas, get a tick kit, people. They're cheap. Don't do what my dad did and use pliers.
- bigbillheck 3y ago> It's one of those "the risk goes up the longer it's attached" type things. I presume it looks like a bell curve. These two statements contradict each other.
- mjhay 3y agoNot if the GP is describing the rate of change of the probability of transmission as a bell curve. We can assume 0% transmission when the bite first occurs, and assume that chance gradually plateaus at some point. That would look like an S-shaped logistic curve, whose derivative is bell-shaped.
- thehappypm 3y agoIt doesn’t— Most tick bites take 36-48 hours before you get infected (bell hump). But sometimes you get infected quickly (left tail) and sometimes it takes longer (right tail).
- happyopossum 3y agoThat'd be an s-curve, as it's always going up - a bell curve goes up then down.
- macintux 3y agoI suppose it depends on whether you’re charting the cumulative or the “instant” odds.
- thehappypm 3y agoThey’re the same thing; the bell curve is probability of being infected at time X specifically, and the S curve is the cumulative sum, that is, the probability you’ll have been infected by day X