Tick season is here — and it's worse than last year
Summer is here, and that means tick frenzy is, too.
Why it matters: Ticks, which are most active in warmer seasons, transmit Lyme disease through bacteria in their bite. The disease causes rash, flu-like symptoms and joint pain — and can be fatal if untreated.
Driving the news: Tick densities on average are higher this year compared with last year, San Francisco State University biology professor Andrea Swei told Axios.
At Swei's field sites in Marin and San Mateo counties, average nymph densities are up around 20% to 30% this year. Nymphs transmit diseases at higher rates than adult ticks.
The Bay Area Lyme Foundation has recorded a similar increase in regional tick activity, particularly in chaparral areas, local parks and redwood forests.
Zoom in: On the West Coast, Lyme is spread by the Western black-legged tick, which has a three-year life cycle and is abundant along California's north coastal areas, according to Swei.
Caveat: While ticks are traditionally associated with grassy areas and bushes, a 2021 study found Lyme-carrying ticks in beach areas at equal rates to woodland habitats in some parts of northwestern California.
What they're saying: When outdoors, "we recommend wearing white so the ticks are more visible, tick-checking yourself and your gear when you arrive home and two days later, and being vigilant to see a doctor if you have any symptoms," Bay Area Lyme Foundation executive director Linda Giampa told Axios via email.
They often first attach to pets.
You can also treat clothing and gear with products containing 0.5% permethrin as a preventative measure, per the CDC.
What to expect: If you find a tick attached to your body, the best way to remove it is to position tweezers between your skin and the tick's mouth and tug gently to remove the whole thing.
Don't squish it; flush it down the toilet.
Ticks can spread disease within hours of attaching to a person.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Why tariffs are already driving some healthcare premiums higher
Related video above: How patients and doctors can reduce healthcare costs (NEXSTAR) – Despite the focus on the price of cars, iPhones and other consumer goods, the Trump administration's tariffs are starting to drive up prices in an entirely different industry – healthcare. On Monday, Matt McGough, with nonprofit health policy organization KFF, wrote that several individual insurance companies have already notified state regulators that they will be raising premiums to offset the potential impact of tariffs on pharmaceuticals. Trump hasn't yet targeted pharmaceuticals with tariffs, but has repeatedly brought it up, including on Monday aboard Air Force One. 'We're going to be doing pharmaceuticals very soon,' Trump said, according to Reuters. 'That's going to bring all the companies back, into America.' In a May filing, the Independent Health Benefits Corporation (IHBC) said it was submitting a premium rate change of 38.4% for 2026, 'primarily due to increased costs due to inflation and tariffs, and changes in risk adjustment.' An IHBC spokesperson told Axios that roughly 3% of that increase was to directly account for the impact of tariffs, specifically on drug prices. McGough notes that there are other insurers who either haven't specifically mentioned the potential effect of tariffs or who declined to include an offsetting increase in 2026 premium rates. 'A large proportion of medical goods currently comes from international sources, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices and personal protective equipment, as well as other low-margin, high-use essentials like syringes, needles and blood pressure cuffs,' Tina Freese Decker, board chair of the American Hospital Association, wrote in a May post. 'Tariffs on these items could impact patient care by jeopardizing the availability of vital medications and essential health care devices. They also could raise costs for hospitals and heighten shortages and supply chain disruptions.' Meantime, millions of Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollees could see an over 75% average increase in premiums if Biden-era subsidies aren't extended by Congress before they expire at the end of the year, according to KFF estimates. How much tariffs are weighing on the calculations of insurers will become a bit more clear on Aug. 1, Axios notes, when proposed 2026 premium rates are posted.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Econometer: Should the US ban drug advertising to consumers?
The U.S. is rare among Western nations because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But a new effort aims to stop it. A bill was introduced in Congress recently that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, from TV to social media, to promote their products. Prescription drug advertising employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. Billions are spent on advertising each year, employing advertising workers, and 24.4% of ad minutes were for prescription drugs across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC this year through May, according to data from iSpot analyzed by The Wall Street Journal. Proponents of the bill say advertising drives up the cost of prescription goods. Pharmaceutical trade groups have said advertisements serve public health by increasing disease awareness and educating consumers about treatment options. Question:Should the U.S. ban drug advertising to consumers? Economists Alan Gin, University of San Diego YES: Advertising is supposed to give consumers more information about products, but are consumers really in a position to make an informed decision about pharmaceuticals? Those decisions are best left to physicians, who probably have more knowledge about the effectiveness of medications. Consumers can be swayed by slick and repetitive ads into wanting products that might not be the best for them. The money spent on the ads will add to the already high price of the drugs. James Hamilton, UC San Diego NO: Proponents of a ban argue that ads cause people to request unnecessary drugs. But advertisements helped several of my friends learn about options that they didn't know were available. I'm also concerned any time the government dictates what companies are allowed to talk about. It's appropriate to ensure ads do not make inaccurate claims. And doctors should always say no if patients request a prescription that the doctor does not believe is going to help them. Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Advertising specific drugs leads to overprescribing, higher drug and insurance prices, and creates bad incentives, like promoting the most profitable drugs. Because insurance limits consumer costs, more prescription drugs are purchased than needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry groups can promote a range of treatments for a condition, leaving discussions of individual products to medical professionals. Drugs also carry risks that are not easily captured in 30 seconds. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research NO: Firms do not advertise to raise costs but engage in marketing to inform the public (especially doctors writing prescriptions) of the drug's usefulness. Without marketing, firms would be unable to get information out necessary to make a drug salable in the first place. The drug's value is decided by the marketplace with consumers driving the entire process. Value of advertising is derived from the value consumers place on the drug, not the other way around. Norm Miller, University of San Diego NO: While most physicians try to keep up on the latest drug research, some do not, thus the need for public information about new drugs. What should be mandatory in ads are their efficacy, side effects and potential for addiction, using FDA verified stats. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for drug manufacturers to incentivize or pay doctors for prescribing any drug, and physicians that take such gifts should lose their license. Ray Major, economist YES: Every ad starts with or ends with "ask your doctor if this drug is right for you." Prescription drug advertisement targets consumers hoping they ask their doctor for a specific brand of drug. Consumers are not qualified to self diagnose symptoms and prescribe drugs to themselves based on information from a commercial. Doctors should be prescribing drugs based on a patients' needs and not influenced by patients who have seen an ad for a prescription drug. David Ely, San Diego State University NO: Commercial speech by pharmaceutical companies that is truthful and informative should be protected. A ban on drug advertising goes too far. A better option is enhanced regulation by the FDA and FTC to ensure that the risks and effectiveness of prescription drugs are accurately communicated in advertising to the public. Under a ban, resources would be shifted to increased promotional efforts targeting health care providers so the cost of prescription goods may not decline. Executives Gary London, London Moeder Advisors NO: I am not a big fan of drug advertisements, but unlike cigarette ads, which clearly promoted sickness for generations, at least drugs are lifesaving. The government should not get involved. However, I have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies promote directly to patients rather than physicians. They complicate medical care. Be that as it may, these advertisements certainly prop up the cable channels, who need the revenue. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates YES: The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay the risks, leading to uninformed decisions. Ads can push consumers toward brand-name drugs, even when cheaper alternatives exist. Also, patients may request unnecessary medications, pressuring doctors to prescribe them. Sure, ads can educate, lead to earlier diagnosis, and boost the economy! But let's limit ads during the first few years of release. Phil Blair, Manpower NO: They are a product like any other. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on various options just like they do with other products. Of course, they should heed their doctors' advice. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: Drugmakers spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer ads last year. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world's highest per-capita health care bill, with relatively poor health outcomes. Slick spots encourage viewers to "ask your doctor" for brands even when cheaper generics accomplish the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence, not marketing budgets. Pharma could shift a fraction of this outreach to physician education so that patients will still learn about therapies from an informed source. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: Absolutely. The cost of pharmaceuticals has become prohibitive to patients and providers like hospitals, and the huge cost of advertising is wrapped into those costs. While we want informed patients, pharmaceutical education should be handled by patients' physicians, not a jingle on TV. Advertising also can be misleading and increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers - which is why many countries prohibit advertising. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While I don't enjoy watching the litany of drug advertisements consistently shown on family programming, I don't support a blanket ban. Instead, drug advertising should follow the model currently allowed to cigarette advertising: prohibit ads on TV and radio but allow other forms of advertising with appropriate limitations and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments can be beneficial, the current barrage of drug advertising is excessive and likely leads to over prescription and increased health care costs. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
3 in 4 want legally required, publicly disclosed presidential health tests: Survey
Three in four Americans want health test requirements for presidents that would be released to the public, a new survey released on Friday found. Seventy-four percent of respondents agreed there should be legal requirements for the sitting president to share health records, in an Axios/Ipsos poll, and 72 percent of respondents thought most elected officials aren't honest about their own health. Additionally, 81 percent of respondents said there should be age limits in place for federal officials, including presidents, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. Only 40 percent of respondents said former presidents should legally have to share health records. The issue of health and cognitive abilities of sitting presidents has been in the spotlight since former President Biden's disastrous debate in June and eventual decision not to run for reelection. He was 82 when he left office and recently announced he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Earlier this week, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans accused former Biden Cabinet officials, Democratic members of Congress and the media of participating in a massive 'cover-up' to hide what they claim was the former president's obvious and alarming cognitive decline during his final two years in office. President Trump, who just turned 79 last week, is the oldest president to be inaugurated. He underwent an annual physical exam in April and his physician wrote in a memo that he was in 'excellent health.' The memo confirmed that Trump took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a test commonly used to detect memory issues or cognitive impairment, and scored a 30 out of 30. Since he first left office in 2020, Trump had released limited information about his physical health. His campaign released a letter in November 2023 from his personal physician, with little specifics. Nikki Haley, Trump's former U.N. ambassador who challenged him in the 2024 GOP primary, called for cognitive tests for politicians over 75. 'To most Americans, this is common sense. But many political and media elites scoff at these ideas,' she wrote in May 2023. The survey was conducted June 13 to 16 and included 1,104 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.
