Permethrin-treated closed-toed shoes and socks reduce by 74 times the number of bites from nymphs that make first contact with a shoe of a person also wearing treated shorts (because nymphs usually quest near the ground, this is a typical contact scenario). Better protection can be achieved by tucking permethrin-treated trousers (pants) into treated socks and a treated long-sleeve shirt into the trousers so as to minimize gaps through which a tick might reach the wearers skin. Light-colored clothing may make it easier to see ticks and remove them before they bite. Military and outdoor workers uniforms treated with permethrin have been found to reduce the number of bite cases by 80–95%. Permethrin protection lasts several weeks of wear and washings in customer-treated items and up to 70 washings for factory-treated items. Permethrin should not be used on human skin, underwear or cats.The EPA recommends several tick repellents for use on exposed skin, including DEET, picaridin, IR3535 (a derivative of amino acid beta-alanine), oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE, a natural compound) and OLEs active ingredient para-menthane-diol (PMD). Unlike permethrin, repellents repel but do not kill ticks, protect for only several hours after application, and may be washed off by sweat or water. The most popular repellent is DEET in the U.S. and picaridin in Europe. Unlike DEET, picaridin is odorless and is less likely to irritate the skin or harm fabric or plastics.
A 1989 report found that 25% of forestry workers in the New Forest were seropositive, as were between 2% and 4–5% of the general local population of the area.Tests on pet dogs carried out throughout the country in 2009 indicated that around 2.5% of ticks in the UK may be infected, considerably higher than previously thought. It is thought that global warming may lead to an increase in tick activity in the future, as well as an increase in the amount of time that people spend in public parks, thus increasing the risk of infection. North America
Many studies in North America have examined ecological and environmental correlates of the number of people affected by Lyme disease. A 2005 study using climate suitability modelling of I. scapularis projected that climate change would cause an overall 213% increase in suitable vector habitat by 2080, with northward expansions in Canada, increased suitability in the central U.S., and decreased suitable habitat and vector retraction in the southern U.S. A 2008 review of published studies concluded that the presence of forests or forested areas was the only variable that consistently elevated the risk of Lyme disease whereas other environmental variables showed little or no concordance between studies. The authors argued that the factors influencing tick density and human risk between sites are still poorly understood, and that future studies should be conducted over longer time periods, become more standardized across regions, and incorporate existing knowledge of regional Lyme disease ecology.