I think that is a poor choice of headline. The crisis isn't overblown, but rather all the money that is spent on it MIGHT be more useful if we spent some of it on other things.
That's hard to disagree with. I think those of us lucky enough to live in countries where most illnesses are treatable or curable are a bit selfish in the way we handle the HIV pandemic. We aren't scared of pneumonia, polio, malaria, etc, so we don't really care as much when people die from that. We aren't scared by the fact that people still die of dysentery and a lack of potable water, because we're quite safe in knowing WE won't.
So we spend billions upon billions treating AIDS, because it's trendy, because we can feel better about ourselves, while the people living with HIV are watching their children die of illnesses that we think of as part of the Oregon Trail video game.
We develop new drugs-- people in the worst-hit areas won't take them because of widespread beliefs that the HIV-drugs give you AIDS. People take them incorrectly because they don't have a clock and have to guess when it's time. Fewer than 5% of the population in many of these areas have even been tested.
And we keep spending the money on "them" because we worry that someday one of "us" will get it, and we won't be able to cure it yet. We could be, and should be, spending SOME of that money treating the serious problems that we already know how to fix.
But I do not think that the pandemic of HIV has been in any way overblown. People are settling back into the notion that it 'won't happen to me'.