This depends on so many things - your comment is precisely hysterical.
It depends on where you live, whether or not you check yourself after you leave the woods, what kinds of ticks they are, whether the disease is being carried, and what kind of disease it is.
I grew up in the woods. I've had lots of ticks crawl all over me. I've only been bitten a time or two. And the ticks I've encountered don't carry Lyme's disease.
And that is NOT to say that my experience is everyone's experience and that there is no danger. But your comment is absolutely exaggerated.
My statements are true for most of central Europe. They are also true for large parts of the US. Solid data backs this up. This is not an emotional argument, tick prevalence is a well-researched field with lots of data.
The data says it's likely you'll get ticks, but not that you'll suffer severe consequences if you do minimal care. Every bushcrafter and scout knows to check for ticks. The prevalence of life-long Lyme disease with debilitation consequences is very small. I know that you're not even claiming otherwise, but the way you're making your argument is scare mongering and misleading to those who know nothing about ticks and tick-borne diseases.
It depends on where you live, whether or not you check yourself after you leave the woods, what kinds of ticks they are, whether the disease is being carried, and what kind of disease it is.
I grew up in the woods. I've had lots of ticks crawl all over me. I've only been bitten a time or two. And the ticks I've encountered don't carry Lyme's disease.
And that is NOT to say that my experience is everyone's experience and that there is no danger. But your comment is absolutely exaggerated.