Let's play "Stats: How to lie through your teeth because normies are too fucking stupid to understand numbers".

Black children were 100 times more likely to be shot than white children during the first 21.5 months of the coronavirus pandemic

21.5 months seems like an oddly specific number to use here. 🤔

The study analyzed data from Philadelphia, which has the highest firearm homicide rate nationwide, and the three most populous cities in the U.S: New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago

🙄

So skewing the results before even starting by picking the superlative State for firearm homicide rates, and not bothering with any others? Did nobody see how this would affect the results? [Probably, which was the point.]

firearm assaults among people 18 and younger nearly doubled from 2015 to 2021,

Ah yes, 2015-2018, those horrible years of CoViD 2019 😷

from nearly nine children per 100,000 to nearly 17 children per 100,000.

Why is "nine" spelled out when "17" is not? This is basic consistency in report production and data publishing. "nine children per 100,000" alone is bad form, the fact there are subsequent data points also being reported in other formats just highlights the poor quality of typing and lack of editorial oversight going on.

The dataset included both fatal and nonfatal shootings for every city except Chicago (for which data on nonfatal injuries among children was not available).

...

So first, the data set is incomplete. Second, Chicago has a rep, possibly influencing why the data isn't included. Third, the fact it was was only 'nonfatal' injuries may also go against whatever narrative someone is hoping to push here so again that data was "lost" to then excuse it as 'not available'.

Among non-Hispanic white children,

Also known as "white children".

there was no increase in shootings.

This is where some useful idiot will come out with the galaxy brain take of "we need to lower the % of the other groups" which an even bigger useful idiot will take to mean bumping up the numbers here. Similar story happened when x% of reporters killed were mentioned to be female and how that number needed brought down, either ignorantly or maliciously, skipping over what that would mean for male reporters. Another similar story deals with hiring quotas when the sought after numbers can't be met due to a lack of desired groups so the alternative option is to fire the others and bring down the "excess" proportions.

Black children saw the most significant increase, from 27 children per 100,000 to 34

Hold up, let's go back to that earlier claim in the article.

Black children were 100 times more likely to be shot than white children during the first 21.5 months of the coronavirus pandemic

Meaning it's already the case that this group is 3 times greater than the average rate, of "nine" [can't have that data point stand out too easily or this issue I'm raising here might be picked up by too many people]. Which will therefore drag the average rate higher than any of the other groups sit at.

So bringing up 'during the first 21.5 months of the coronavirus pandemic' is both pointless and disingenuous because the numbers were already that much higher since the data set it reported to start in 2015, 5 whole years before CoViD was a thing!

For those wondering why it's 5 years and not 4, first of all 2015-2019 is 5 years inclusive: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Second, CoViD might be called SARS-II-CoViD-2019 but it was only in the last few months anyone really noticed it and "the pandemic" sure as hell didn't start in that year. Lockdowns and other measures came about from March 2020 onwards.

Anyway, back to the numbers.

Black children saw the most significant increase, from 27 children per 100,000 to 34

Raw numbers alone 27 to 34 is only about a 25% increase. So the headline is a lie. Twice.

Shootings of Children Nearly Doubled

No.

During the Pandemic

Also no.

The Black-white disparity grew from a relative risk of 25 percent to 100 percent; the Hispanic-white disparity tripled; and the disparity between Asian and white children nearly tripled.

Before dealing with the actual numbers, again this reporting addresses similar things with differing expressions. '25 percent to 100 percent' vs 'tripled'. Also note the formatting for what words are capitalised and what words are not.

Now for the actual numbers.

the Hispanic-white disparity tripled;

Hispanic numbers weren't mentioned at all in the article.

the disparity between Asian and white children nearly tripled.

Asian numbers weren't mentioned either. In fact the term "Asian" only appears twice in the entire article and this is one of the two. The other is;

“The concentration of firearm victimization among Black, Hispanic, and Asian children must be addressed at the individual, community, and societal levels,” the researchers wrote. “It is critical to focus community safety and mental health interventions in the most affected communities and to target structural racism as a fundamental driver of the U.S. firearm violence epidemic.”

So firearm issues require addressing at 'individual, community, and societal levels' but this still an 'epidemic' despite the study only looking at one State and three cities.

“These stats are astonishing, but not surprising.

This means the writers know why all of this is happening. Claiming something is 'not surprising' requires both an existing knowledge base [mostly] and the preconceived opinion/prejudge explaining that data set. Try seeing what happens if someone else says the exact same thing, either verbatim or from the other side of the coin.