Statement B: I believe people who inject drugs should receive rehabilitative treatments
17. Donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it
Table 25. Level of Agreement – subsidize treatment for people living with HIV
Strongly agree 10 17 18 19 42 28 33 22 9 37
Somewhat agree 26 36 28 38 34 45 45 23 32 50
Overall agree 36 53 46 57 76 73 78 46 41 87
Somewhat disagree 22 23 23 22 11 16 12 19 26 8
Strongly disagree 33 16 15 14 3 4 4 29 18 5
Overall disagree 56 39 39 36 14 20 16 48 44 13
Not sure 9 8 16 7 9 7 6 7 15 <1
North America Latin America Western/ Central Europe Eastern Europe/ Central Asia East Asia South/ Southeast Asia North Africa/ Middle East Sub-Saharan Africa Oceania Caribbean
In the Caribbean region, nine in ten (87%) agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while 13% disagree. Large majorities in both Jamaica (88%) and the Dominican Republic (86%) agree that donors/
taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
Eight in ten (78%) in the North Africa/Middle East region (Egypt) agree that donors/tax–
payers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while a sixth (16%) disagree. Large majorities across most demographic subgroups agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
In the East Asia region, three quarters (76%) agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, and a sixth (14%) disagree.
Respondents in China (90%) are much more likely than respondents in Japan (42%) to agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
About three quarters (73%) in the South/South-East Asia region agree that donors/
taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, and a fifth (20%) disagree. Respondents in India (79%) are more likely than those in Thailand (65%) and Indonesia (63%) to agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
In the eastern Europe/central Asia region, about six in ten (57%) agree that donors/
taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while more than a third (36%) disagree. Respondents in Kazakhstan (66%) are more likely than those in the Russian Federation (59%), Belarus (54%), Ukraine (59%), and Latvia (47%) to agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
More than half (53%) in the Latin America region agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while two fifths (39%) disagree. Respondents in Brazil (55%) are more likely than those in Mexico (49%) to agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV.
In the western/eastern Europe region, about half (46%) agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, and two fifths (39%) disagree. Respondents in Spain (57%) and Sweden (53%) are more likely than those in the United Kingdom (43%), the Netherlands (40%), and France (36%) to agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV.
Respondents in the sub-Saharan Africa region are divided between agreeing (46%) and disagreeing (48%) with donors/taxpayers subsidizing treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it. Respondents in South Africa (57%) are more likely than those in Uganda (10%) to disagree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for those living with HIV for as long as they need it.
Respondents in the Oceania region (Australia) are divided between agreeing (41%) and disagreeing (44%) that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
In the North American region (the United States), more than half (56%) disagree with donors/taxpayers subsidizing treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while more than a third (36%) agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize it. Men
Agree Disagree Not sure
Figure 8. Select countries: travel restrictions against people living with HIV
In the United States, more than half (56%) disagree with donors/taxpayers subsidizing treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while more than a third (36%) agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize it. Large majorities across most demographic subgroups disagree with donors/taxpayers subsidizing treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
More than half (57%) in South Africa disagree with donors/taxpayers subsidizing treat-ment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while more than a third (36%) agree. Large majorities across most demographic subgroups disagree with donors/
taxpayers subsidizing treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
In China, nine in ten (90%) agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while 8% disagree. Large majorities across most demographic subgroups agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
Eight in ten (79%) in India agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while a sixth (16%) disagree. Large majorities across most demographic subgroups agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
In the Russian Federation, six in ten (59%) agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, while more than a third (37%) disagree. Large majorities across most demographic subgroups agree that donors/
taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.
Large majorities in the sub-Saharan Africa region are evenly split between young people (73%) and the general public (73%) as to where the majority of funding for HIV preven-tion should focus, with large majorities in both South Africa and Uganda also thinking these two areas is where the focus should be.
In the Latin America region, two thirds (67%) think the majority of funding for HIV prevention should focus on the general public, and more than half (58%) think it should focus on young people, with large majorities in both Brazil and Mexico reporting nearly the same.
Respondents in the North American region (the United States) are divided between think-ing the majority of fundthink-ing for HIV prevention should focus on the general public (57%) or young people (55%), with large majorities in most demographic subgroups reporting nearly identical results.
In the Oceania region (Australia), respondents are divided between young people (55%), the general public (54%), or people who inject drugs (51%) as to where the majority of funding for HIV prevention should focus. Those aged 30–49 (63%) and women (61%) are more likely than those aged 50–64 (55%), those age 65 and older (54%), men (46%), and those aged 18–29 (35%) to think the majority of funding for HIV prevention should focus on the general public.
More than half (55%) in Brazil agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it, and more than a third (37%) disagree.
Large majorities across most demographic subgroups agree that donors/taxpayers should subsidize treatment for people living with HIV for as long as they need it.