I think the “on the ground” answer varies depending on you, where you are and what insects are around. 70% of deer tick bites may carry Lyme, but the percentage of insect bites with red rings that are Lyme is probably different. If you’re walking through northeast pine forest or low density suburban woods, assume Lyme!
Red rings from bites are not uncommon in general. I know I get a reaction from horse flies that looks to professionals like a potential deer tick bite with Lyme.
Those of us who just went through the "Brood X" cicada emergence are now going through a glut of something called "oak mites", which apparently feed on the cicada eggs, but also just get everywhere. They are kind of like chiggers, burrowing under the skin, and are too small to see with the naked eye. The "bites" are particularly itchy and can also cause red splotching that may appear ring-like sometimes. I had a minor freak-out the first time I saw a splotch on my 3-yr-old's back, but it didn't spread and the blotchiness actually went away rather quickly. Luckily, these welts don't seem to last as long as mosquito bites.
Also, a tick-bite splotch doesn't always have to be ring-shaped.
By contrast, lyme disease is (1) more than 40 years old, (2) not contagious, and (3) has no political headwinds. There is little reason to distrust CDC on this.
Several states felt it was necessary to pass laws regarding Lyme and provide immunity to physicians willing to treat long haul covid...errr long haul lyme patients.
Seems rather naive to presume they had to pass new laws because Lyme has no political headwinds. It has plenty of controversy around it, for better or worse.
I was able to substantiate your comment about the laws being changed in two California bills (2013 AB1278 and 2005 AB592) amending BPC 2234.1 that appears to relax restrictions about treatment of "persistent" Lyme disease.
I do not think it is relevant to the point in this thread that is discussing whether Lyme disease does or does not result in a bullseye rash (Erythema Migrans or EM), and the CDC claiming that in 70-80% of cases the rash is present, which you baselessly disputed and edited your comment to accuse those of downvoting "facts".
As an example of what "evidence" might be, a 2009 paper [1] in Current Problems in Dermatology refers:
> EM is by far the most frequent manifestation of Lyme borreliosis. In the USA, more than 70% of patients registered with Lyme borreliosis had EM [28]. Among 1,471 patients shown to have Lyme borreliosis in an epidemiologic study in southern Sweden, EM was seen in 77% of all cases, and was accompanied by other signs of the disease such as nervous system involvement, arthritis, lymphocytoma and/or carditis in only 6.5% [29]
You can dispute those referred studies if you wish, but I think it would be hard to argue that CDC's statement that Lyme disease is characterized by EM in 70-80% of cases is untrue.
[1] Strle, F., & Stanek, G. (2009). Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis. Lyme Borreliosis, 51–110. doi:10.1159/000213070
You should provide evidence, and when you go back and edit your response to do so, that evidence should be relevant to the discussion at hand.
There's a huge difference between data on a disease that's been studied for over 40 years, vs one that's only been around for a few months.
If you think the CDC got it's facts wrong on Lyme disease, it's as simple as saying "This source disagrees", and provide the source. Jumping to the conclusion that your unnamed source is more accurate than any other is another problem itself.
According to the CDC, its 70-80%[0].
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/signs_symptoms/index.html