My best guess is that it's from here. See page 3 for the table on the screencap.

There are some caveats when interpreting that data, though. See my other comment for details

Here's the official report on OP's screencap (the table can be found on page 3).

A few things to keep in mind when interpreting those numbers:

• According to San Diego's official site, around 79% of residents are fully vaccinated. Because the ratio of fully-vaccinated to unvaccinated is not 1:1 (actually 4:1), it is natural that the proportion of people who caught COVID will be skewed towards the fully-vaccinated merely because they outnumber the unvaccinated by 4:1.
  Imagine the following scenario: out of 1'000 people exposed to COVID, 800 are vaccinated and 200 are unvaccinated. Let's say the vaccine reduces your chances to get COVID by 60%. Let's say that the base chance of you getting COVID if exposed is 50%. Thus:
  50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 100 people.
  50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 400 people. BUT, the vaccine prevents the disease from developing in 60% of the cases, thus the actual number of people who test positive is: 0.5 * 0.6 * 800 = 240 people.
  So in the end, we have 240 + 100 = 340 people with COVID. Out of those 340, 240 or 70.5% are fully vaccinated. So, even though the vaccine did reduce the chances of developing the disease, the number of vaccinated people with COVID still far outweighs the number of unvaccinated in the total statistics.

• The same effect as explained above is bound to influence the percentage of deaths too.

• In addition to the proportions effect, there is another bias when it comes to the percentage of deaths. Namely, that people who are at risk are far more likely to be fully vaccinated than people who arent. If you look at the statistics on that same page (page 3), you'll see that 41% of deaths are people who are double vaxed and fully boosed (67% if you count the non-boostet vaxed)!
  BUT, 99.9% of people in the age group at risk are fully vaxed. And they are basically the only ones dying of covid (see page 8).

• The inverse bias is to be expected for the unvaxed. Those tend to be younger, stronger and healthier people living predominantly in rural areas (sun, vitamin D, exercise, early exposure to pathogens [playing outside, dealing with animals], etc.)

There are ways of correcting this behavior amicably.

The problem with most "educated" people nowadays is that they are rote-learners and rote-thinkers. That is, they memorize a collection of factoids and simple "If A then B" syllogistic rules, instead of being able to derive and reason about concepts. The tragic fact is that for the most part, they are completely unaware of the fact that they don't actually understand a subject.

It's like only knowing that if you push down the gas pedal, it will make the car go faster. And from that singular knowledge deluding yourself that you understand how engines work. A better and more encompassing analogy is Searl's Chinese Room, which involves a man getting messages in Chinese, following a complex set of rules depending on the characters received so that he himself can respond with an appropriate set of characters. All the while, the man doesn't actually understand a single word of Chinese and has no idea what the original message or his response to it actually mean.

So how can you remediate your daughter's behavior? Use the Socratic method. Have a genuine interest in her position and explore it with her, while asking her to explain or justify that position from an epistemological standpoint. That is, try to find out how is it that she knows what she knows. If she is stumped, can't answer, or gets angry (a common reaction when someone is put in that position), don't pressure her. Just let it go and be nice about it.

It should suffice that she gets confronted with the fact that she doesn't truly understand what she's talking about on a semi-regular basis. With time, the difference between rote-thinking (doxa) and actual understanding (episteme) should start to dawn on her.

I highly recommend Bourgeois Overproduction and the Problem of the Fake Elite by James Lindsay

Wasn't tagged as shitpost when I saw it

Not what it looks like on my end

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).[1][2] Definitions can be classified into two large categories, intensional definitions (which try to give the sense of a term) and extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes).[3] Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions.[4][a]

The only change to this paragraph since 2015 is the addition of "ostensive definition" as a definition class.

I also cannot find a recent edit in the history page. The last edit was in February 2022.

All the versions available in Archive.org also don't match op's screenshot.