>>2459982I'm not a faggot (eurofag is not to be taken literally), so I've never really cared about AIDS. I actually do make fun of people using condoms, but probably not for the reason you think.
Help me in walking through the process then. You've been bitten by X number of ticks on your last trip, or your day plowing the field, or whatever. Let's assume it is not a daily threat, because otherwise you need to start labelling your ticks meticulously I guess. You have them in a sealed jar or whatever. You keep those ticks for the maximum potential onset duration of all the various diseases you can get from ticks in your neck of the woods. At some point, you develop symptoms for potential tick-borne disease Y. You go to the doctor with your symptoms and your box of ticks.
Why would the doctor not just run tests directly on you, rather than go through X number of ticks? You are the one with the disease. Theoretically, one of the ticks in the box could carry disease Z, but hasn't infected you with it, in which case the doctor is now chasing a wrong lead.
Again, I am genuinely curious.