Bumblebees

I remember learning that while most animals behave to get as much done for a given amount of energy expenditure (maximise benefit/energy cost) this isn't true of bumblebees. They behave in such a way as to get the most done per unit time (maximise benefit/time cost). This is because after a determined length of time they essentially 'wear-out' and die. I've noticed something similar in human resource poor medicine which I wanted to share.

In high human resource settings doctors are generally encouraged to make decisions based on health cost vs benefits. Prescribe a certain drug to enough patients and the adverse side-effects will be out-weighed by the improved quality and quantity of life (health benefits > health costs). When human resources become limited the doctor is often faced with a different question. Is it worth me spending a certain amount of time on an intervention for a given benefit to the patients (maximise health benefit / unit of doctor time). There are a whole bunch of initiatives I would like to start including aspects of preventative medicine and intensive care of the critically ill. The question is not whether there is a cost vs benefit advantage to the patients but given that time is very limited, which of these interventions should I choose to do at the expense of the others. Basically you need to have a much greater understanding of how much something works and not just that it works at all. Financial resources must be considered in both settings but where I'm working financial cost comes into it less than you might think.

I have something else in common with the bumblebee because the only other thing I remember learning about bumblebees is that according to the laws of aerodynamics it is impossible for them to fly!