logo
How to protect yourself from ticks year-round

How to protect yourself from ticks year-round

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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

A MAHA Progress Report
A MAHA Progress Report

Atlantic

time2 hours ago

  • Atlantic

A MAHA Progress Report

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spent the past six months working fast to embed his Make America Healthy Again creed into American life. Over the summer alone, he has struck deals with some food companies to phase out some petroleum-based food dyes, waged a war against pediatricians over COVID-19 vaccines for young children, seemingly toyed with the idea of shipping fresh food to Americans in ' MAHA boxes,' and pledged to reboot the nation's dietary guidelines from scratch. I spoke with the Atlantic staff writer Nicholas Florko, who reports on health policy, about how the MAHA-fication of the country is coming along. Nicholas Florko: We've seen Robert F. Kennedy Jr. take actions that will weaken our vaccination system in the United States, confirming some of public health's worst fears. But there have also been some surprising successes in his term. RFK Jr. has embraced the role of a dealmaker, and we've seen him leaning on food companies in particular to change their offerings and get rid of synthetic dyes. He's been able to do that simply by asking and by making handshake agreements, as opposed to what we would normally expect from a health secretary—for him to use his regulatory power to force these changes. Stephanie: Why are these handshake agreements proving successful? Nicholas: Food companies likely realize that it's in their best interest to get on the good side of the Trump administration. We see this throughout all sectors of business, but for the food sector, these changes are small enough that companies can make them without dramatically hurting their bottom line, while also earning a lot of brownie points with the administration. Stephanie: That reminds me of President Donald Trump's announcement in July that Coca-Cola, famously his favorite drink, had agreed to make their soda with cane sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup. To what extent is Trump influencing health policy? Does RFK Jr. have a lot of latitude? Nicholas: The Coca-Cola issue is an interesting one because while it's true that RFK Jr. is very anti–high-fructose corn syrup, he's also publicly called sugar a 'poison.' So this is one of those instances where you wonder what is behind RFK Jr. supporting this change. He must know that this isn't actually going to significantly improve public health, but also probably realizes that this is important to his boss. That being said, I think that RFK Jr. does have some latitude. If you left Trump to his own devices, you probably wouldn't see the same level of aggression toward food companies overall, unless he had a personal stake in the situation. Stephanie: With back-to-school season under way, many students are getting up-to-date on their shots. How does this year's vaccination season compare to years past? Nicholas: We haven't seen huge changes, but we are seeing some hints of what might come. Much of the action thus far is around COVID vaccines. In February the president issued a largely symbolic executive order barring schools from enforcing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, but by the time that was issued, virtually no schools actually had such a policy. RFK Jr. also softened the CDC's recommendation for kids to get the COVID-19 vaccine. That's probably been one of his most controversial decisions, prompting a high-profile clash with pediatricians; a leading pediatrics group put out its own suggestions saying that children should be getting vaccinated. But we haven't seen major changes to the other vaccines typically required for returning to school. Stephanie: That disagreement must make it confusing for parents to know who to listen to. Nicholas: It's reasonable to assume that a good portion of people will listen to RFK Jr., but those people may be already skeptical of vaccines and see him as a trustworthy messenger, versus folks who are on the fence. I think that's really the question: Where do those people who are on the fence go? Do they take RFK Jr.'s suggestion, or do they trust their doctor? Stephanie: In May, you wrote a story that was alarming for salad lovers, specifically about how bagged lettuce should be avoided. What's happening with America's food-safety system? Nicholas: One of the earliest, most concerning changes for food safety happened when DOGE came into the federal agencies. Advisory committees focused on food-safety questions were shut down. People were being laid off—such as the administrative staff in charge of making sure that inspectors can go out to farms. Some layoffs seem to have been rescinded, but there's a broad worry about what will happen to the day-to-day operations that we all depend on to keep us safe. Stephanie: A recent story about the recall of frozen shrimp with potential radioactive contamination has caused a bit of a panic about where America's food safety is headed. How did you take that news? Nicholas: One thing that gives me some hope is the fact that this is the sort of thing that we caught, and there have been recalls by Walmart. That's really the big fear when it comes to food safety: that if we attack these federal programs, they're not going to be able to actually find the food that might get us sick before a lot of people get sick. So I think this is actually a good sign that things are working relatively well. Stephanie: Out of all the stories you've written this past summer about the MAHA movement, is there one that keeps you up at night? And is there one that makes you feel hopeful for where American health and safety is going? Nicholas: Honestly, the stories that keep me up at night are by our colleague Katie Wu. Her recent one on RFK Jr.'s COVID revenge campaign has really stuck with me. My own story that both keeps me up at night and that makes me hopeful is related to states, which are taking up the MAHA charge in a very quick fashion. It's felt like Republican governors and legislatures are all trying to out-MAHA one another to ingratiate themselves to Trump and to RFK Jr. Some of these ideas are good from a public-health perspective, but these states are doing a lot of things really fast, which is what worries me. For example, some states are blocking people from using food stamps to buy soda and other junk food. There's a question of how that policy will be implemented, how the attempts to enact these restrictions could affect the entire food-stamp system. Other states have passed laws banning artificial dyes in their school meals. Again, it's one of those ideas that's a good step, but the devil is in the details of how it's executed. How does this flurry of activity in the states actually affect people in the coming months? Does this ultimately make America healthier, or does it send our food system into chaos? Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News A New York appeals court voided the roughly $500 million civil-fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, calling it 'excessive,' but upheld the finding that Trump and his company committed long-running business fraud. Business restrictions on Trump in New York remain, and the state plans to appeal. More immigrants are leaving the U.S. than arriving, according to the Pew Research Center. The shift, affected by Trump's strict immigration policies, is the first of its kind since the 1960s. California lawmakers passed the first of three bills on a redistricting plan backed by Governor Gavin Newsom that would shift as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats toward Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterms. The move comes a day after Texas state House Republicans passed a new congressional map that could add five U.S. House seats for the GOP. Evening Read What We Gain When We Stop Caring By Anna Holmes Sometime in the early aughts, the comedian Amy Poehler made a vulgar joke while sitting in the Saturday Night Live writers' room waiting for a midweek read-through to begin. As detailed in Tina Fey's 2011 memoir, Bossypants, Jimmy Fallon, who was also in the show's cast at the time, jokingly recoiled and told Poehler to stop it. 'It's not cute!' Fallon exclaimed. 'I don't like it.' 'Amy dropped what she was doing, went black in the eyes for a second, and wheeled around on him,' Fey writes. ''I don't fucking care if you like it.'' Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Read. In 2022, The Atlantic 's Culture writers recommended the books that they read too late —but that you should read now. Take a look. This is how the 17th-century painter Rachel Ruysch became one of the greatest still-life painters in the history of art, Zachary Fine writes. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push
Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court decided Thursday. The high court majority lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The high court did keep Trump administration guidance on future funding blocked, however. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was along those who would have kept the cuts blocked, along with the court's three liberals. The order marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with canceling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life.' The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training program cuts. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. But the plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers, they argued. U.S. District Judge William Young judge in Massachusetts agreed, finding the abrupt cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing in June. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court left Young's ruling in place. ___

Trump VP JD Vance makes liberals explode: ‘Lying through his teeth'
Trump VP JD Vance makes liberals explode: ‘Lying through his teeth'

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump VP JD Vance makes liberals explode: ‘Lying through his teeth'

Vice President JD Vance continued his tour touting President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in Georgia on Thursday — but one of his points raised the eyebrows of critics. While speaking to a crowd in Peachtree City, Vance aimed to promote how the GOP's sweeping budget bill could help working-class American families. During his remarks, he tore into former President Joe Biden's administration, claiming that some of its policies have caused rural hospitals to struggle as a result. 'So what we did is we put a lot of resources and a lot of changes and regulations to make it possible for rural hospitals to stay open, despite what the Biden administration did to them for four years,' Vance told residents just outside of Atlanta. Since Trump signed his signature policy package into law last month, rural hospitals across the country have maintained that they now have to consider tough choices, including affording services or even closing down their facilities, NBC News reported, as well as other outlets and organizations. Many rural hospitals rely on Medicaid funding, given they serve a higher share of low-income patients compared to other areas — but according to KFF, a health policy research group, the bill could lead to around 17 million people losing their health care coverage due to changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have argued that nearly 300 rural hospitals are at risk of shutting down due to the legislation. It includes a federal spending cut more than $1 trillion over a decade from health care and food assistance, mainly stemming from new work requirements for those receiving aid and differences in how states can fund their programs through a provider tax. The bill also contains a $50 billion fund called the Rural Health Transformation Program, which has been framed as a way to offset losses for providers due to some of its provisions. Vance's comments were met with pushback from some social media users. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) tore into his claims about rural hospitals, writing on X that 'Donald Trump's Big Ugly Bill puts 29 rural hospitals in New York on the chopping block.' 'Lying through his teeth,' she said. 'We will hold you — and your boss — accountable." MeidasTouch, a progressive network, posted that 'Rural hospitals are literally closing because of this bill. He is lying. This is beyond cruel and evil.' One user said: 'At least he believes what he's saying. Doesn't help all of the rural clinics that had to close because they lost funding. Or the major hospitals that had to cut back on services because their funding was pulled as well.' 'The simplicity in which he lies should be really concerning to people. Thankfully he's about as likable as sitting on a thumbtack,' a different user said. Someone had attached a screenshot of a story from Health Affairs, which argues that the bill does not protect rural hospitals, adding 'No, you guys are going to close rural hospitals.' Vance also went on to say that the Trump administration's health care policy is 'very simple.' 'Whether you're in a big city or a small town, we're going to fight for your access to health care. Whether you're an American citizen who's been here for 70 years, or an American citizen who's been here for two years, we're going to fight for your access to a government that serves you,' Vance said. 'But if you're an illegal alien, you do not deserve government-paid health care benefits. You need to get out of our country, and that's simple as that,' he continued. Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to

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