Dr. Paul McKeown:

I know that a study group in UCD has been undertaking work in this regard. I have inquired about it but the person involved is on holiday. The previous survey was two to three years ago. Tick surveys are useful whenever the concentration of ticks in a given habitat can be determined. It is also useful to know the proportion of those ticks that are positive. Generally, it is anything from 5% to 25%. The important point is that there is a danger that this would make us complacent and we would believe ourselves to be safe in a given area because only 2% of the ticks there are infected and there are not that many of them. A basic universal precautions approach should apply. We know that the kinds of areas where ticks are to be found are very well described. They are woodland or parkland. Ticks clamber up fronds of grass and hang on to them with their back legs ready to jump at any passing mammal, including humans. We know from surveys across Europe that 90% of adults bitten by ticks are bitten on their hands, arms, legs or feet and that approximately 40% to 50% of children bitten are bitten around their hairlines and in their necks, particularly the soft tissues there. We would therefore much prefer universal advice to the effect that these are the kinds of areas where one can expect there to be more ticks and that these basic precautions should be taken when examining oneself. One is most likely to find a tick on one's arms or legs, but everywhere should be examined. Therefore, while such surveys are useful, I would not base any strong policy on them. I would want to ensure that everyone had the necessary information to minimise the chances of being bitten by a tick.