One argument in favor of PrEP is a financial one.
The point needs to be made to political leaders that PrEP ultimately pays for itself.
According to the US CDC, the large majority of people at risk for HIV infection face their greatest level of risk early in their lives.
Gay men in their 20s and early 30s, for example, are significantly more likely to seroconvert than older gay men.
Gay men in their early 20s are much more likely to seroconvert.
Identifying people most at risk and offering them PrEP during the few years when they face the highest risk is a money-saving no brainer.
Offer PrEP for a few years or pay for antiretroviral treatment after infection for life.
The CDC is making this point nationally to policy makers as loudly and as clearly as they can.
Stopping the spread of HIV and reducing the prevalence of infection to very rare levels is within our grasp, technologically speaking.
Treatment as prevention (TASP) works.
PrEP is a hell of a lot less expensive than TASP, though.
The moral arguments people tend to make in opposition to PrEP make little sense in the light of practical epidemiology.
Young people will be irresponsible sometimes. That’s just human nature.
With PrEP and PEP, though, we can still beat HIV to a standstill.