This is the thing I don't understand about Lyme disease...or any insect-borne disease for that matter. Ticks (or insects) are born sterile. The theory is that they are exposed to the pathogen by feeding on an infected animal, and then pass that infection onto the next host they bite...i.e., they bite something, fall off (or fly away) and find another host. But ticks and insects don't feed that way. Actually, a very tiny percentage of these parasites ever find a host (most die before feeding), and when they do find a host, they feed enough in that single event to provide the energy to produce eggs. They die soon after.
In order for a disease such as described to multiply and remain a threat, you'd have to have most of the population of ticks or insects feeding on multiple infected animals. It just doesn't happen this way.
So, what does that imply? Perhaps that these diseases are actually a symptom of something else they're not telling us about?
Thanks for the link, but it gets back to my original problem with the behavior of the tick (or insect) requiring them to first bite and ingest the pathogen, THEN find a second animal to transmit it to. You might find a local "hot spot" of disease this way, but not a widespread area of disease covering multiple states.
Let's say you have a host animal who is infected by the pathogen. That pathogen only remains active while the animal is alive. The death of the animal effectively shuts down that vector. You'd have to have an immense population of infected animals for this thing to work.
This is the thing I don't understand about Lyme disease...or any insect-borne disease for that matter. Ticks (or insects) are born sterile. The theory is that they are exposed to the pathogen by feeding on an infected animal, and then pass that infection onto the next host they bite...i.e., they bite something, fall off (or fly away) and find another host. But ticks and insects don't feed that way. Actually, a very tiny percentage of these parasites ever find a host (most die before feeding), and when they do find a host, they feed enough in that single event to provide the energy to produce eggs. They die soon after.
In order for a disease such as described to multiply and remain a threat, you'd have to have most of the population of ticks or insects feeding on multiple infected animals. It just doesn't happen this way.
So, what does that imply? Perhaps that these diseases are actually a symptom of something else they're not telling us about?
Hope this answers your question...
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/transmission/index.html#:~:text=Larval%20and%20nymphal%20ticks%20can,during%20their%20next%20blood%20meal.
Thanks for the link, but it gets back to my original problem with the behavior of the tick (or insect) requiring them to first bite and ingest the pathogen, THEN find a second animal to transmit it to. You might find a local "hot spot" of disease this way, but not a widespread area of disease covering multiple states.
Let's say you have a host animal who is infected by the pathogen. That pathogen only remains active while the animal is alive. The death of the animal effectively shuts down that vector. You'd have to have an immense population of infected animals for this thing to work.
I'm baffled by this...
Vector borne pathogens often do not make the host vector sick. That in large part is what allows spread.
The limiting factor is the lifespan of the host, though. Many of the animals described as hosts here in North America have fairly short lifespans.