Hello again Chris, My explanation is still valid I guess. The good news in the report is due to 2 factors: 1- the natural progress of the epidemic 2- the prevention programs Seems the natural progress of the epidemic resulted in the above mentioned decrease in infections in sub-Saharan Africa and east Asia. However by examining your article the following sentence says: I"n Eastern Europe, the epidemic has leveled off. But new infections appear to be rising again in some countries." So although the prevention programs are partly good news, their drawback is that they are not changing which results in rising infections in some countries. The report doesn't say that the prevention programs are 'slacking off',yet they are sort of stagnating and not changing nor expending to cope with the requirement to stop the wide-spreading of the epidemic. One statement to prove it from your article : "Karen Stanecki at UNAIDS says few programs, for example, are designed for people in secure relationships. Or people over twenty-five. Or the newly single." It shows that the prevention programs are not sufficient and not covering different categories of potential carriers of the virus.

Hello Chris Wang, In an attempt to evaluate a report about the epidemic "AIDS" , the experts think that the prevention programs mentioned in the report constitute the good part of it , however the drawback is mentioning at the same time that those prevention programs are not changing ,while the epidemic is ,which means they are not coping with the evolving symptoms of the disease. This is a disadvantage making the prevention programs less acceptable as good positive news for preventing further development of the epidemic.