We can see that already with existing PrEP formulations: in the US, the drugs retail for several thousand dollars for a single month's supply, and insurance companies had to be strong-armed into even covering them.
You keep commenting here about how HIV is the fault of the people who have it. Now you seem to be arguing that if there are people who have HIV and it's not their fault, they don't matter because they're statistically unlikely. That doesn't track.
There are many thousands of people that have HIV through no fault of their own. And there's no reason that this drug is not a good idea for those people.
Two days ago: Over 2,400 patients may have been exposed to HIV, hepatitis infections at Oregon hospitals
Whose fault?
> The Oregon Health Authority said that investigations into the breach centered around a physician who delivered intravenous anesthesia and employed "unacceptable infection control practices, which put patients at risk of infections."
Can you read? "Protection, not cure". Are you going to make everyone take it ad vitam aeternam just in case of potential medical errors?
A cure to HIV would be welcome in theory, though I'm sure it'd be distributed like candy to people who don't want to be responsible for their questionable choices.
> In an ideal world, governments will be able to purchase this affordably and it will be offered to all who want it and need protection against HIV.
Well, since we don't live in an ideal world, we'll have to see what "not-ideal" looks like...