Open Letter to Ventura County [CA] Officials

Dear Ventura Public Health Officials, Ventura County Board of Supervisors, Law Enforcement, and Simi Valley City Council Members

I am attending many of the city council meetings in Ventura County for the purpose of informing councils any intention to roll out the TRACE ACT is unlawful.  In this letter, claims, assumptions, facts and evidence relating to the alleged COVID-19 Pandemic will be critically analyzed and reviewed.   The rationale for doing this is to illustrate that current measures are inappropriate –even unlawful—and should be lifted immediately. 

The recent salivating session I witnessed at the televised Ventura County Board of Supervisor meeting discussing how to “quickly” swing into action for fear of losing federal funding for the unlawful TRACE act was horrifyingly disgusting. The interest in grabbing my (taxpayer) dollars to fund the unconstitutional tracing and testing of individuals under this specious excuse of the Corona flu infection is utterly unfounded.

You have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and you have a duty as the local GOVERNING BODY to inform yourselves with facts and given that many of the people you serve are informed you need follow them. I, along with thousands of others that I am aware of, am not asking you to abandon TRACE. I am telling you to abandon TRACE. If you think the public will allow you to hire thousands of people to roll out this proposed unlawful act, paying people upwards of $50,0000 a year you need to know many of us will seek damages in court against you.  The theft of the people via taxpayer money to now fund permanent positions to commit unlawful acts IS A CRIME.

Moreover, it is very suspicious that New York is hiring full time tracers given this is a flu with an expiration date. This will not stand in this county. It is your job to be informed. Ignorance at your level of leadership will not be tolerated.

From what I’ve gathered you have not read reports from the hardest hit areas, but rather repeating the same lies and myths propagated by the mainstream media. In fact, our own health care professionals and scientists from the leading academic institutions in this country advised against any sort of quarantine. I am listing just a few of the facts on Corona here in this email which you should have informed yourselves about before making the decisions to ASK residents to mask, social distance and isolate. I expect you to do the rest of the research as I have done. You have now been notified. 

Here is what doctors both here and abroad have told us. 

Fact #1: The Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.07-0.20%, in line with seasonal flu

The Infection fatality Rate math of ANY new virus ALWAYS declines over time as more data becomes available, as any virologist could tell you. In the early days of COVID-19 where we only had data from China, there was a fear that the IFR could be as high as 3.4%, which would indeed be cataclysmic. On April 17th, the first study was published from Stanford researchers that should have ended all lockdowns immediately, as the scientists reported that their research “implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases” and pegged the IFR between 0.12-0.2%.

As the first study to peg the IFR, the Stanford study came under withering criticism, prompting the lead researcher, Dr. John Ioannidis to note,

“There’s some sort of mob mentality here operating that they just insist that this has to be the end of the world, and it has to be that the sky is falling. It’s attacking studies with data based on speculation and science fiction. But dismissing real data in favor of mathematical speculation is mind-boggling.”

Like all good science, the Stanford data on IFR has now been replicated so many times that our own Centers for Disease Control came out this week to announce that their ‘best estimate’ showed an IFR below 0.3%. In this article on the CDC’s new data, ( also highlighted how the cascading declines in IFR has removed all the fears of doomsday:

If that isn’t convincing enough please refer to this report that shows IFR are between 0.1% and 0.41%.

Fact #2: The risk of dying from COVID-19 is much higher than the average IFR for older people and those with co-morbidities, and much lower than the average IFR for younger healthy people, and nearing zero for children

Soon after the Stanford study released its data (he wasn’t a study author), Stanford’s Dr. Scott Atlas published an opinion piece in The Hill newspaper with the title, “The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation.” ( wrote:

The recent Stanford University (  antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies…Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.

Italy reported three days ago that 96% of Italians who died from COVID-19 had “other illnesses” and were, on average, 80 years old. From Bloomberg:

“The latest numbers show that new cases and fatalities have a common profile: mostly elderly people with previous illnesses,” ISS chief Silvio Brusaferro said at a news conference Friday.

The best age stratification comes from Here’s their chart estimating death rate by age group. Please note that death rate is MUCH higher than IFR because death rate uses confirmed COVID-19 cases as the denominator, but it shows you how different the fatality rates are by age:

While this data is “crude”, it’s safe to extrapolate that an 80+ year-old person has a serious risk of dying from COVID-19 while a child faces almost no risk. This fact should drive policy, as Dr. Atlas explains:

Of all fatal cases in New York state,( two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

As one simple example: closing schools makes almost no sense given what we know about COVID-19, while protecting teachers over the age of 60—to pick a somewhat defensible age boundary—may well make sense. This is why so many countries who seem to respect data more than we do here in the U.S. have already re-opened their schools. In fact, Denmark’s schools have been open since mid-April!! And, for those keeping score, Reuters just reported yesterday that, “Reopening schools in Denmark did not worsen outbreak, data shows.”  (’s a quote:

“You cannot see any negative effects from the reopening of schools,” Peter Andersen, doctor of infectious disease epidemiology and prevention at the Danish Serum Institute said on Thursday told Reuters. In Finland, a top official announced similar findings on Wednesday, saying nothing so far suggested the coronavirus had spread faster since schools reopened in mid-May.

Another great article on schools, titled, “It is fear – not science – that is stopping our children being educated”  ttps://  in The Telegraph newspaper, here’s a quote:

There is little about coronavirus we can be absolutely sure of – this is a brand new disease and our knowledge grows by the day –  but most of the available evidence so far strongly suggests that children are neither suffering from coronavirus nor spreading it. Studies in South Korea, Iceland, Italy, Japan, France, China, the Netherlands and Australia all concur that youngsters are “not implicated significantly in transmitting Covid”, not even to parents and siblings.

Brand new science (May 28) released from Northern Ireland clearly shows that schoolchildren do NOT serve as vectors for COVID-19. Titled, No evidence of secondary transmission of COVID-19 from children attending school in Ireland, 2020, the study could not be more clear:

These findings suggest that schools are not a high risk setting for transmission of COVID-19 between pupils or between staff and pupils. Given the burden of closure outlined by Bayhem and Van Lanker, reopening of schools should be considered as an early rather than a late measure in the lifting of restriction.

The Wall Street Journal published this article titled Is It Safe to Reopen Schools? These Countries Say Yes. (

This reads as a bit of a litmus test for countries that have independent and data-driven public health officials, and the U.S. gets an ‘F” for our current approach:

But Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and most other countries that have reopened classrooms haven’t had outbreaks in schools or day-care centers…In Denmark, the opening of schools had no impact on the progress of the epidemic, said Tyra Grove Krause, a senior official with the State Serum Institute, the country’s disease control agency…Since Austria reopened on May 18, no increase in infections has been observed in schools and kindergartens, a spokesman for the government said…In Norway, the government won’t close schools again even if the number of cases starts rising in the country because there have been no negative consequences from reopening schools on April 20, said Education Minister Guri Melby.

How many more countries need to re-open before the U.S. follows? Seriously, it’s a little embarrassing…

Fact #3: People infected with COVID-19 who are asymptomatic (which is most people) do NOT spread COVID-19

If this study had been published in early March, the odds that the world would have locked down are very, very low. Yet, this study, published only two weeks ago, is nowhere to be found in the media, and is never mentioned by policy makers. It just sits there, sharing the truth for anyone willing to listen.

How many people did the study have to screen? 455. Not a small number, as the researchers explain:

455 contacts who were exposed to the asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carrier became the subjects of our research. They were divided into three groups: 35 patients, 196 family members and 224 hospital staffs. We extracted their epidemiological information, clinical records, auxiliary examination results and therapeutic schedules.

“In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection…”

Said differently, exactly zero people were infected. The scientists, in typically understated fashion, offer up a comment about the question I hope you are asking yourself right now (namely, why are we all on lockdown if asymptomatic people with COVID-19 can’t spread the infection?), stating, “the result of this study may alleviate parts of the public concern about asymptomatic infected people.”


The question to you now is why have you not done your research and why are you intending to uphold illogical and unlawful orders being handed down from questionable sources? We listen to scientists, not politicians with agendas.  Our politicians are not trusted, particularly in the area of human health. It is up to you now to make informed decisions and not carrying out an unconstitutional act that violates people’s fundamental human rights. Should you become complicit in the carrying out of such act the residents of this county will seek damages. 

I await your response.

Judy Bruce

Simi Valley, CA