the rule of overkill.

i work in a very busy orthopedic hospital, and we have a diverse set of people as patients.. from farmers to politicians, shopkeepers to enterpreneurs.. from the ordinary people to some less ordinary.
most are admitted for fracture surgery, deformity correction, or joint replacement.
there is always a little built-up, sort of an awe, about the vips, be it a simple colles fracture, or a complex acetabular fracture. we use the same team, the same implants, in the same OT, for the richer n the not-so-rich guys.
basically, most factors that might really alter the course of a disease do not differ. those factors are truly randomised.
inspite of that, most 'nobodys' have fabulous results. the post op xrays n follow up xrays are mindblowing.
and then theres the curse. most 'unforced errors', like an acceptable but imperfect result, tend to occur in th vips.
inspite of special rooms, imported waterproof drapes, meticulous planning, absolute commitement... somehow, the richest patients have results that arent so rich. while poorer guys, in whom the team is not worried about, fare perfectly well.
being a part of the team for some time and being out of it for now, even when i look at guys coming for follow ups, its always the less glamorous guys who come walking normally.
well 90% people have good results. so th point i am trying to make is, why do we screw up in the more important cases, although the screw up is only marginal, it is certainly there.


i then extrapolated this to cricket, sala IPL fever. but so many stars play better when they are playin a difficult team but not a important match. an important match with a lallu team may lead to unexpected failure.

and then to other areas of life.. including relationships, competitions and projects. jus like nahs's game theory, my idea of overkill has a definite hold.