Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

bostonglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 175 posts

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#31

Post by locallost »

mgerdts wrote: post #3

https://lymealert.com/how-it-works/ I’m not optimistic this will be all that helpful. Just because the tick you found is negative, that tells you nothing about those you did not find. Just because a tick is positive, that does not mean that it has infected whoever it was attached to. My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the tick…

I think you need to stop overthinking. Yes it can make you sick, but the only thing you can do is be on the lookout for it and be smart about avoiding it. I've had around 4-5 ticks in the last years, my kids and family probably around 15-20, one recently near my ankle that probably could've been avoided if I wasn't wearing short trousers. But anyway nobody ever got sick from it and we live in a region with a high prevalence of tick caused encephalitis. There's a vaccine for that so we're all vaccinated now.

Otherwise just enjoy your life.

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#32

Post by mireg »

mgerdts wrote: post #8
kaikai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the ticks shown were engorged. I’ve hear stats as long as 24 hours and as short as 30 seconds. One nurse told me that removing ticks by grasping and pulling means they transmit immediately, because you squeeze their contents through their mouths. I no longer believe any of the stats; seems…

> you squeeze their contents through their mouths Whenever someone recommends removal using tweezers, I wonder if the person offering this advice has ever removed a well attached tick. I’ve found tools like a Tick Tornado work better, but are still problematic with smaller ticks. https://www.zenpetusa.com/tick-tornado

I always carry a tick removal card in my wallet. Perfect removal every time. Even the tiny ones.

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#33

Post by hmmnxrye »

No, well the point was that noise, chorus, or feedback did not exist. There was no such thing. Therefore, the technical workaround was to place two amplifiers, face to face in order to "mimic" distortion.

This is the way that "Loveless" (1991) was recorded, sans anesthesia.

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#34

Post by lukan »

mireg wrote: post #32
mgerdts wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you squeeze their contents through their mouths Whenever someone recommends removal using tweezers, I wonder if the person offering this advice has ever removed a well attached tick. I’ve found tools like a Tick Tornado work better, but are still problematic with smaller ticks. https://www.zenpetusa.com/tick-tornado

I always carry a tick removal card in my wallet. Perfect removal every time. Even the tiny ones.

The cards I found close to useless. The tools in the link from the parent poster, which are actually for pets, work much, much better.

And tiny ones are easy to remove with finger nails and some spit. But it requires some skill, do not stress out the ticks while they are attached and be careful to not partially remove it.

(Just had to remove 3 ticks on me I failed to spot after a late night walk yesterday, bigger and medium sized ones with tool, the small one with fingernail)

edit: and found a 4th one, but a tiny one(nymphe), they don't carry lyme disease as only ticks who have previously bitten a infected animal before will have it

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#35

Post by DANmode »

mgerdts wrote: post #3

https://lymealert.com/how-it-works/ I’m not optimistic this will be all that helpful. Just because the tick you found is negative, that tells you nothing about those you did not find. Just because a tick is positive, that does not mean that it has infected whoever it was attached to. My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the tick…

> My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged

This understanding will age like milk.

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#36

Post by lukan »

Georgelemental wrote: post #16
kaikai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the ticks shown were engorged. I’ve hear stats as long as 24 hours and as short as 30 seconds. One nurse told me that removing ticks by grasping and pulling means they transmit immediately, because you squeeze their contents through their mouths. I no longer believe any of the stats; seems…

It depends on the disease. Lyme takes many hours, as it must migrate across the tick's gut, but there are others that can transmit in minutes.

Yes, but if you push the tick - it will vomit its gut into you.

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#37

Post by DANmode »

Georgelemental wrote: post #16
kaikai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the ticks shown were engorged. I’ve hear stats as long as 24 hours and as short as 30 seconds. One nurse told me that removing ticks by grasping and pulling means they transmit immediately, because you squeeze their contents through their mouths. I no longer believe any of the stats; seems…

It depends on the disease. Lyme takes many hours, as it must migrate across the tick's gut, but there are others that can transmit in minutes.

“Lyme coinfections”, for anyone seeking a list.

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#38

Post by lukan »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #7
mgerdts wrote: post #3

https://lymealert.com/how-it-works/ I’m not optimistic this will be all that helpful. Just because the tick you found is negative, that tells you nothing about those you did not find. Just because a tick is positive, that does not mean that it has infected whoever it was attached to. My understanding is that the ticks only transmit disease after they have been attached long enough to become engorged. None of the tick…

there have been times in my life where this could have saved me a doctors visit, and that's good enough for me

You went to a doctor because you had a tick, or because you had symptoms? (like the red ring)

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#39

Post by DANmode »

anakaine wrote: post #30
throwawaycan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ever see a tick?

Does it matter at this point?

The “no, never saw a tick” anecdotes help support the obvious concept that a bullseye rash is not required to end up with chronic Lyme.

Re: 15-minute at-home Lyme disease tick test

#40

Post by DANmode »

DANmode wrote: post #39
anakaine wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter at this point?

The “no, never saw a tick” anecdotes help support the obvious concept that a bullseye rash is not required to end up with chronic Lyme.

(nor is a tick required!)
Post reply on HN