Or else? 否则……

Reader question:

Please explain this headline, "or else" in particular: The world needs to work together, or else.

My comments:

Obviously, this headline calls for global cooperation in light of the coronavirus. The world, now more than ever, needs to put aside differences and to aim at conquering the coronavirus, a common enemy.

The world needs to do this, or else.

The question is, or else what?

What happens then is left unsaid.

When we warn people of something, we usually specify the consequences. The teacher may, for example, warn the class to finish homework on time, or else they will be punished - by a reduced score in the exam, for example.

However, the teacher may just say, "hand in your homework on time, or else" and the students will perfectly understand him or her.

That is, all students understand that there'll be consequences, and the consequences will be bad, all bad.

In other words, there's no good alternative. And this is where "or else" is allowed to stand on its own. It appears to make the sentence look incomplete, but the idea to convey is complete.

In our example, if the world doesn't cooperate but instead go on pointing fingers at one another, playing the race card and the like, why, a major catastrophe looms.

This is what's being implied and what people automatically infer.

People will die, people will die by the thousands. Economic growth will be slain and people will lose jobs. People will lose jobs by the millions. Law and order will be threatened. Riots may ensue.

In other words, there'll be consequences, all bad and dire.

Ah well, not to paint too grim a picture, let's read a few media examples of the expression "or else" as a warning, with consequences specified sometimes, sometimes not:

1. Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s bold decision Monday to fire Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson for lying represents two accomplishments in one: The mayor punished Johnson for unethical behavior, and she set an expectation that all officers of the Chicago Police Department will be held to high standards of integrity — or else.

Lightfoot said she terminated Johnson’s employment because the superintendent repeatedly lied to her about the late-night incident in which he was found asleep at the wheel of his vehicle after having dinner and “a couple of drinks.” Johnson, discovered by patrol officers, blamed medication for his predicament and managed to be permitted to drive himself home without submitting to a field sobriety test. Suspicious, that was.

The mayor stood by Johnson while awaiting the results of a city inspector general report, and it’s the findings of the ongoing investigation that got Johnson fired. “It has become clear that Mr. Johnson was intentionally dishonest with me and communicated a narrative replete with false statements regarding material aspects of the incident that happened in the early morning hours of Oct. 17,” Lightfoot said. “Had I known all the facts at the time, I would have relieved him of his duties as superintendent then and there.”

- Editorial: Lori Lightfoot’s firing of Eddie Johnson: A step toward CPD accountability, ChicagoTribune.com, December 2. 2019.

2. Let’s get two things straight right off the bat.

The first is that, in the last few years, no one has protested police wrongdoing more vociferously than African Americans.

The second is that no one has had more reason.

Those reasons include Darrius Stewart, Oscar Grant, Jordan Edwards, John Crawford III, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Michael Brown, Terence Crutcher, Sandra Bland, Sean Bell, Rekia Boyd, Botham Jean, Antwon Rose, Amadou Diallo, Anthony Hill, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, Freddie Gray, LaQuan McDonald, Stephon Clark, Corey Jones, Atatiana Jefferson and all the other African Americans (almost all of them unarmed) who have inexplicably wound up dead from their encounters with law enforcement.

So when Attorney General William Barr complains about certain unspecified “communities” protesting against police, let there be no confusion over who he’s referring to.

This came in a speech at the Justice Department last week before an audience of cops and prosecutors.

Barr compared protests against the Vietnam War a half-century ago to those against police misbehavior now.

Americans, he said, “have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves.” He warned that “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

It was a threat wrapped in an axiom: “respect your local police.”

And who can disagree with the axiom? Police have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. When they do it well, they are absolutely deserving of our esteem. “Respect your local police,” indeed.

But “respect your local police — or else”?

Respect them or the next time you ask them to provide services to which you are entitled as a citizen and a taxpayer, they might — what? — refuse?

And where is the First Amendment in all of this? Are we to accept that government will henceforth punish communities that exercise their right of protest?

Barr’s threat is superfluous evidence of the moral rot that has infested American governance since Jan. 20, 2017.

It is also a deeply fascistic expression of contempt for the Constitution he purportedly upholds.

- 'Respect your local police – or else?’, Columbian.com, December 9, 2019.

3. The situation with coronavirus has changed dramatically over the last few weeks. We are in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, and the U.S. will see an even more dramatic escalation in the weeks to come. As communities, institutions and individuals, we need to switch from reacting to what’s happened to taking bold action in anticipation of what’s coming.

Just two weeks ago, there were 15 cases diagnosed in the U.S. We have now crossed the threshold of over 1,000. An outbreak in Washington state has claimed the lives of at least 20 residents in one nursing home. In New York, the suburb of New Rochelle went from one case to over 110. There are likely many more clusters that are yet to be diagnosed due to lack of testing capacity.

As the situation becomes much worse in the coming weeks, one major concern is with overwhelming the health care system. A moderate outbreak could result in 200,000 patients needing intensive care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. only has 100,000 intensive care beds, and most are already occupied. If tens of thousands become sick at once, people will simply not receive the care that they need. It will not only affect patients with coronavirus, but also others with heart attacks, strokes and conditions requiring intensive care for survival. In other countries, people have died because they couldn’t access care. We are at risk of that happening in the U.S. too.

Hospitals are already implementing their pandemic preparedness plans. They are increasing capacity, canceling routine procedures, ramping up telemedicine and counseling people who can to stay home.

But hospitals alone cannot solve this crisis. It’s up to all of us to decrease the demand for hospital care by reducing the rate of disease transmission. In epidemiology, this is called “flattening the curve.” We cannot stop transmission altogether, but we can slow it down. That way, we can reduce the number of acutely ill patients and reduce the likelihood that patients who need care have to go without.

What does this mean? So far, the U.S. has focused on containment: quarantining travelers and investigating contacts of the ill. As more and more cases are detected, public health agencies won’t be able to keep up, nor would it make sense to. The focus has to shift from containment to mitigation, meaning that instead of stopping individual transmission, the goal is to implement societal interventions of social distancing.

...

Individuals can each do our part too. Even if the young and healthy may not get very ill, they can still spread coronavirus. Everyone can stay home when sick, cover coughs and sneezes and stop shaking hands. Washing hands frequently makes a huge difference. Together, we can reduce the risk to ourselves and all those around us.

The U.S. is already behind in our response to coronavirus. The time for aggressive action is now, or else we will look back and wonder why we didn’t act sooner when we had the chance.

- On coronavirus, US must shift from containment to aggressive mitigation, by Leana S. Wen, HoumaToday.com, March 12, 2020.

About the author:

 Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.