Post by hakutsuru on Sept 5, 2007 23:26:58 GMT -8
Misconceptions about what it means for Lyme to be considered endemic in a particular area are roadblocks to effective diagnosis and treatment in much of the country. Lyme can be found in virtually any state but it is endemic in only a few. A disease is endemic in an area when the number of instances of the disease is relatively stable. When the number of instances becomes unstable and increases over time the disease is no longer endemic but epidemic. Epidemic diseases sometimes settle back down to an endemic state but more often, they burn out like a fire.
Southwestern Connecticut and eastern Long Island are among the places that have steady rates of Lyme. They are therefore endemic areas. When a disease appears sporadically in a region it is neither endemic nor epidemic. Thus, in much of the rest of the country Lyme exists in significant numbers but not enough to be endemic.
A good analogy might be that in an endemic state the number of cases of a disease are like a steady flowing stream but when it’s overflowing its banks it is an epidemic. Lyme is a mere trickle in most places, not enough to be a steady stream, but it is certainly enough to get a significant number people wet.
In Nevada there are only few cases reported every year. It doesn’t seem to exist here in a steady state, just a few cases here and there. It’s here but it isn’t endemic. The trickle here only occasionally touches a few people. Unfortunately, my wife was one of the few to get splashed.
When doctors roll their eyes and scoff at the possibility that someone might have Lyme because they happen to live in a non-endemic area, they commit what philosopher’s call a fallacy of ambiguity. More specifically, it is an equivocation of two different senses of the term ‘endemic’. In medical jargon, the term is statistical and refers simply to the state where the number of cases reported stays constant. In its everyday use, the term means that something can only be found in that particular area. So, when we say something is endemic to an area in the ordinary sense, we mean that it can’t be found anywhere else. When we say that something is endemic and we are using it as medical jargon, we are giving a bit of statistical information and not saying one way or another whether it can be found elsewhere.
Doctors often refuse to diagnosis or even test because it isn’t endemic (in the medical sense) to that area. If they understand the meaning of ‘endemic’ in the medical sense then they should acknowledge the possibility of Lyme even in non-endemic areas. If they believe that Lyme could only be found in endemic areas that would mean that Lyme couldn't exist anywhere because it simply isn’t endemic anywhere in the non-medical sense. That would mean that it can only be found in one place and we know that’s not true. The bottom line is that Lyme can exist just about anywhere, even in non-endemic areas. Doctors might sometimes remind themselves of this.
Southwestern Connecticut and eastern Long Island are among the places that have steady rates of Lyme. They are therefore endemic areas. When a disease appears sporadically in a region it is neither endemic nor epidemic. Thus, in much of the rest of the country Lyme exists in significant numbers but not enough to be endemic.
A good analogy might be that in an endemic state the number of cases of a disease are like a steady flowing stream but when it’s overflowing its banks it is an epidemic. Lyme is a mere trickle in most places, not enough to be a steady stream, but it is certainly enough to get a significant number people wet.
In Nevada there are only few cases reported every year. It doesn’t seem to exist here in a steady state, just a few cases here and there. It’s here but it isn’t endemic. The trickle here only occasionally touches a few people. Unfortunately, my wife was one of the few to get splashed.
When doctors roll their eyes and scoff at the possibility that someone might have Lyme because they happen to live in a non-endemic area, they commit what philosopher’s call a fallacy of ambiguity. More specifically, it is an equivocation of two different senses of the term ‘endemic’. In medical jargon, the term is statistical and refers simply to the state where the number of cases reported stays constant. In its everyday use, the term means that something can only be found in that particular area. So, when we say something is endemic to an area in the ordinary sense, we mean that it can’t be found anywhere else. When we say that something is endemic and we are using it as medical jargon, we are giving a bit of statistical information and not saying one way or another whether it can be found elsewhere.
Doctors often refuse to diagnosis or even test because it isn’t endemic (in the medical sense) to that area. If they understand the meaning of ‘endemic’ in the medical sense then they should acknowledge the possibility of Lyme even in non-endemic areas. If they believe that Lyme could only be found in endemic areas that would mean that Lyme couldn't exist anywhere because it simply isn’t endemic anywhere in the non-medical sense. That would mean that it can only be found in one place and we know that’s not true. The bottom line is that Lyme can exist just about anywhere, even in non-endemic areas. Doctors might sometimes remind themselves of this.
