I was recently asked by a friend to check their back for a possible tick. I saw a tiny round dot without legs and said I think this is a scab. It came off easily. But they said there was no reason for them to have a scab back there, so I put the dot under a digital microscope, which showed that the reason there were no apparent legs was that the legs were curled up under the body:
And the reason it was round was that... there was no head.
So the microscope goes back on my friend's back and sure enough - there was the head - still embedded in the skin. There followed a prolonged debridement with available tools - a needle and alcohol wipes - with eventually satisfactory results.
The diameter was only about 3-4 mm, so this was probably a nymph. The attachment had been only for a matter of hours, so the risk of Lyme was negligible. Still it was a bit unsettling...
YUCK!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHaving been treated for Lyme *thrice*, I would recommend a prophylactic course of doxycyclene (or whatever abx they're using now) just to be safe. The last time I got a bullseye rash the tick had been on me for less than 8 hours total, including unattached time.
ReplyDeleteTesting people to see who had the antibodies indicating exposure to Lyme, Europe showed 20%, Caribbean 2%, and the US 9%.
ReplyDeleteCurrently taking doxycycline for Lyme disease, so can confirm @andiscandis.
ReplyDeleteThe tick was on me for less than an hour, probably less than a half-hour, and had not attached in any way. Thought I was in the clear until the telltale red rash started nearly a week later.
They're apparently particularly bad this year in the States.