PrEP has negative side effects (besides being quite expensive for the state), condoms on the other side, don't have side effects, and are cheap.
It's a matter of having some sense of personal responsibility really.
It's a matter of having some sense of personal responsibility really.
This exact phrase was used to spin the deaths of thousands of gay men as a personal failing not many years ago. Stop doing it.
2. Some people are allergic to them
3. There are some activities that you really don't want to do with a condom
4. How about we just don't fucking shame people for not wanting to use a condom as long as both (or all) parties agree. Especially when there is a drug like prep.
That depends if it's those people bearing the full cost of buying PrEP, or if they expect the state/insurance companies to do it for them.
Wear condoms.
Contracting HIV with unprotected sex is difficult (1/1000 for vaginal sex and insertive anal sex, 1/71 for receiving anal sex - all numbers for unprotected sex) [1], breaking a condom is also difficult (4% cases in anal sex between gay men - which is the higher number [2]). Meaning that contracting HIV while wearing a condom, is extremely difficult (0.05% in the worst hypothesis).
It's up to you then, to prove that PrEP is more efficient than 99.95% of times (while still disregarding that unlike condoms, PrEP doesn't protect you in any way from other STDs... yes, those STDs that people not using condoms and that think they are entitled to have other tax/insurance payers providing PrEP for them, are spreading around).
[1] https://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-ri... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27227161