{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024150130749115522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011998154130133826, 'mean_word_length': 5.412228796844182, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Specification of a Social Intervention Model Against COVID-19

The objective of the present work was to specify theoretically, conceptually and empirically a model of social intervention against the Covid-19 coronavirus...


Theory of Social Intervention
From its origins, Social Work has distinguished itself by serving the infected population, developing assistance models and prevention models for health contingencies such as epidemics and pandemics developed by virus spread and contagion from person to person in the course of their interactions [8]. This is how social work in its origins developed a model of care based on home visits and the exploration of health conditions, as well as the capacities and resources of potentials infected and affected by the spread of viruses [9]. This diagnostic model focused on the sanitary conditions of the potential victims of the spread of risks served to distinguish differences and similarities between migrants and natives [10]. It was an acculture model since it was structured according to the values and norms of the hegemonic groups such as the native communities [11]. This model focused on cultural values defined social intervention in the face of risk events such as contagion due to the importation of the virus, but the exclusion of migrant communities soon forced the construction of other proposals such as multicultural and intercultural [12].
The dominant cultural values and norms of native communities imposed on migratory flows derived from containment and mitigation strategies, generating exclusion zones. It was the case of risk events such as those that occurred around the H 1 N 1 influenza in Mexico City [13]. The second model generated from the differences between the sanitary conditions of native communities regarding migrant flows, would be linked to mitigation because it recognizes the interrelation as necessary in the groups [14]. In multicultural citizens, native communities depend on the services provided by migrant flows and are willing to accept or tolerate the precedence of workers who, due to their condition and function, are exposed to potential risks, if they comply with the labor law or code civil current [15]. The cases of containment of the propagation implemented in multicultural cities with a preteen of migratory flows, native groups and native communities exemplify this multicultural model in which social intervention is separated from opportunism and moves towards the optimization of resources [16]. However, both the cultural and multicultural model inhibit the initiatives of the public and social sectors around risk prevention [17]. It is the intercultural model that has allowed a dialogue between the parties, focusing on the negotiation, agreements and co-responsibilities between migratory flows and native communities [18]. While the acultural and multicultural models are structured based on biomedical management and media dissemination of prevention, care or monitoring measures of Covid-19, the intercultural model seeks proportional representation of the parties involved [19].

Studies of Social Intervention
Studies related to social intervention refer to the diagnosis of a problem in relation to alternative solutions, although the proposals are increasingly dynamic depending on the evolution of the problems [20]. In the case of the Covid-19 coronavirus spread, it has been consolidated in China, although the containment strategy has slowed the number of cases [21]. The works built from the a cultural model have proven effective in the spread of diseases such as Mexico with H 1 N 1 influenza and China with Covid-19 coronavirus, although this supposes a suppression of services and the diversification of the supply of products in digital protocols out of reach of native or marginalized communities [22]. In the case of the multicultural model in which mitigation strategies are activated based on the dominant values and norms of exclusion, even when services are concerned, political legitimization has been generated [23]. It is about risk management based on the communication and amplification of exclusion, containment and mitigation zones according to the evolution of cases [24].
In migratory flow transit communities, acculturation and multiculturalism models explain and legitimize mitigation and containment strategies, but if these communities are in constant interrelation with migratory flows and original communities, then the intercultural model not only explains but also anticipates scenarios contagion, mitigation and containment futures [25]. The discussion publishes through a common agenda between the parties involved, as well as the representativeness in voice and vote of the migratory flows and other social sectors supposes a formative disposition of capacities and resources that distinguish the organized sectors [26]. However, acultural, multicultural and intercultural models have focused their attention on relationships between groups, communities or flows of people without considering the emergence of the spread of risks such as the Covid-19 coronavirus [27]. Therefore, it is necessary to anticipate these scenarios of risks, threats, contingencies and uncertainty in order to mitigate or cancel their effects on the social dynamics of the groups, communities or sectors involved [28].

Method
A documentary study was carried out with a selection of sources indexed to local and regional repositories, considering the impact factor, the edition from 2015 to 2020 and the search by keywords: "mitigation", "detection", "cancellation" and "coronavirus ". A search of the information was carried out in the local and regional repositories; Academia, Copernicus, Dialnet, Lat index, Pub index, Readlyn, Scielo, Zotero and Zenodo. Judges experts in the field se-

Results
The procedures of summaries that accounted for the acultural (65%) model were superior to the findings reported around multicultural (30%) and intercultural (5%) models according to the coronavirus.
Regarding the differences between these models with respect to the social and public sectors, it is necessary to consider that there are significant differences between the native groups with respect to migrants in the acultural framework ⦋x 2 = 15,46 (23 df) p < ,05⦌,

Conclusion
The objective of the present work was to specify theoretically, agreements between the parties and co-responsibility between those who make decisions and those who carry them out.