We have no idea. That's the problem. I can't give you an idea. I know that we do have a lot of false negatives. I don't know how many of these people actually have one of the co-infections. It's possible, and this is what my research is, to look at all the bacteria in the tick, and when it comes to surveillance, I think that would be a great thing to do. We could find out that, for example, in Nova Scotia, there is a lot of Borrelia burgdorferi and maybe a lot of Rickettsia, whereas in Ontario it's a lot of Borrelia burgdorferi and Enterobacteriaceae, something like that, and we can march across.
As far as the false negatives go, one of the other questions is how are you defining Lyme disease? If you are defining it as two-tier positive, then we have a lot of problems here. We need to have a better grasp of tick-borne illnesses, of which Lyme disease is one.
So I know it's a high rate, but I don't know what it is. I can't give you a number.