Hyatt Will Require Guests To Wear Face Masks Indoors

Filed Under: Hyatt

Hyatt is following in Marriott’s footsteps, and will require guests to wear face masks while indoors at its hotels as well.

Hyatt will require guests to wear masks

As of July 27, 2020, and for the foreseeable future, Hyatt will require guests at all US and Canadian properties to wear face coverings in all indoor public spaces.

Hyatt defines public areas as including hotel lobbies, meeting and event spaces, restaurants and bars, and fitness centers. Hyatt notes that some guests may be exempt from this mandate, including guests with medical conditions, guests consuming food or beverages in restaurants, and children under the age of two.

This follows newly published recommendations from the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA), which has created a “Safe Stay Guest Checklist.”

This is a positive, overdue development. We know that face coverings help slow the spread of coronavirus, and it’s a small way we can do our part to stop the spread while still trying to go about our everyday lives.

Hopefully Hyatt hotels do a decent job with enforcing this new requirement. However, given the lack of enforcement I’ve witnessed with hotel employees wearing masks, I’m not sure I’m that optimistic.

Hyatt guests will have to wear masks indoor in public areas

The AHLA’s new coronavirus checklist

As mentioned above, this follows the AHLA’s recently published new guest checklist, intended to show how guests can travel safely while also creating a standardized safety experience nationwide. This checklist includes the following:

  1. Require face coverings in all indoor public spaces and practice social distancing in all common areas
  2. Choose contactless options, where available, including online reservations, check-ins, and payments
  3. Consider daily room cleaning, only if necessary; ask the hotel about your options
  4. Request contactless room service delivery
  5. Refrain from traveling if you have, or recently had, any symptoms of COVID-19 or contact with anyone diagnosed with COVID-19

Hyatt properties have physical distancing markers in public areas

Bottom line

As of July 27, Hyatt guests in the US and Canada will have to wear face masks whenever indoors in public areas. This is a great initiative, and I imagine we’ll see more hotel groups follow soon.

What do you make of Hyatt’s new guest mask requirement?

  1. There’s a reason Hyatt is one of my favorite hotel brands.

    This move reinforces that.

    Hyatt wants live customers, not dead ones.

  2. Companies are doing this for liability reasons. It’s a smart move. Problem is enforcing it is impossible. Especially for hotel where people traveling are least risk adverse and most likely to not want to wear masks or not believe in Covid/science. Puts staff in unenviable position. You need Costco level commitment to this to make it work. Part of that commitment is being willing to alienate a certain segment of the population. I doubt Hyatt is willing to do that.

  3. @ Dan. Local hotels will have to do their level best. Many guests are going to hotels with the expectation that other guests will follow the rules and it won’t be good for the local hotel staff to be seen ignoring violations where they are evident like at check in and main lobby. Corporate could be getting a lot of calls and if you have status with Hyatt or Marriott for that matter I would be complying 100%. Ultimately it will come down to what the have been told internally to do with non-compliance. Call police to ensure they are checked out? Think many will shy away from calling the police. Status or not I have no issues wearing a mask when a private property business owner tells to do so. Not an option or debate in my book. Unlike many I do not wear outside in parking lots. I take off as soon as I’m outside. Note: Walmart requires and my local store doesn’t do squat for the 40% of people not wearing one.

  4. Just waiting on Hilton to follow suit, and I hope they do. I regularly stay at Embassy Suites every two weeks on business travel. I was in St. Charles, MO this past weekend, and there were unmasked kids and adults running all over the place, cramming into the elevators. It was quite disturbing to myself as well as a few other elderly guests, who openly commented on it (I didn’t even go that far).

  5. We will eventially get there and people will have to wear mask. Would have been easier and helpful to save lives if there was a federal mandate but its the American way to get to do the right thing eventually in a convoluted way. For example Trump finally flipped too.

  6. Hotel chains need to start a “no stay” list banning the reckless, science-rejecting troglodytes who violate these mask rules.

  7. Been to 12 Hyatts across 9 states + D.C in the last 4 weeks, and not one of them didn’t require masks.
    Weird that this is just being announced.

  8. “This is a positive, overdue development.” Onemileatatime is just as bad as the mainstream media in promoting fearmongering and the myth that masks significantly protect people from the virus. You should do your research and not believe everything the media tells you. In the meantime, could you please stick to travel and lay off the activism?

  9. @Ariel

    Laughable that you ask someone to ‘do their research’. Please do some of your own.

  10. @Ariel The masks don’t protect you, they protect other people. Even Trump is saying wearing a mask is patriotic now, so maybe you should answer why you’re so unpatriotic and hate America so much that you want to spread COVID-19 and kill other Americans.

    It isn’t activism to try to avoid more dead people, it’s the right thing to do.

  11. I can see it now: for World of Hyatt members, a complimentary mask upon check-in. For Discoverists and above, a free mask with your free bottle of water. For Globalists, the mask is an N95!

  12. @Ariel

    The only thing OMAAT is doing wrong is not enforcing their own commenting guidelines and deleting comments like yours.

  13. To me the bigger issue has been staff compliance, not guest compliance. Stayed at the HP in NW Houston last night. The GM and her associate were working behind the front desk and interacted with me multiple times. They didn’t have a mask on, and Houston has had this as a requirement for quite a while.

  14. @Ariel Your feelings about masks aren’t consistent with current science. Maybe you’re looking at data that’s stale, or comments by politicians in the early stages of this crisis that sought to blame-shift away the fact that they had no masks to provide to the general public. Ignore the media if you like, but go chat with any competent board-certified physician with “MD” in their title that you trust. They will advise you of the latest science free of activism or politics.

  15. Hilarious how low socioeconomic, non college educated, backwater anti-maskers always proclaim “do your research”.

    Find me a real researcher who publishes in peer reviewed scientific journals who’s vehemently anti-mask. Oh you can’t? Then stfu.

  16. FWIW I just came back from a stay at Park Hyatt Washington and they were already strictly enforcing a mask policy at all indoor areas – they had hand-sanitizer stations everywhere and made it clear they would not check you in or serve you unless you were following their mask policies.

    This was in line with local D.C. regulations, but surprised to hear this wasn’t a chain-wide policy, given the rigour with which they enforced it. It’s sensible, easy, and the right thing to do – wear your masks!

  17. This is silly. One thing is to debate whether masks should be used in packed indoor premises where many people spend lot of time together. There are some good arguments for that. But in a hotel? Even if we assumed every single guest and staff is infected, how likely are you to catch COVID-19 by passing by someone? This is three months old, such approach was taken when we had very little knowledge about the virus and the disease. With the up-to-date knowledge it just doesn’t make any sense.

    I’m really glad that these policies seem to be confined to North America (both with Marriott and Hyatt), I suppose they know this wouldn’t fly in Europe and would effectively kill a business in this market.

  18. How much time and close contact do you have with other guests at the hotel? Infection doesn’t happen by briefly walking around someone. It’s one thing to require it in cramped poorly ventilated spaces, but in a hotel??

    I’m glad this is not extended to European properties (I guess they know why, it would kill their business).

  19. I love the back and forth between pro-maskers and anti-maskers. So exciting! We all know the right answer, yet so many Karens keep insisting on speaking to the manager. This engagement is akin to a veritable Jim Jones vs. Marilyn vos Savant. Can’t wait to see which side comes out ahead.

  20. I’m glad Hyatt is *requiring* masks. Despite the “masks highly encouraged” signs at the entrance, the front desk, and the elevators at the HP, I would say that half the patrons did not wear masks in the lobby or in the breakfast area when we stayed there last week. No social distancing, either. One man and one woman, not in the same party and neither wearing masks, just strolled right up next to me at two different areas of the breakfast room. Even though all the staff wore masks, we decided to check out a day early because we felt unsafe.

    It’s come to this: I will only patronize businesses where mask-wearing is enforced. Those who don’t want to wear masks can go to businesses where masks are encouraged, but are really “optional.” Let’s see which businesses lose the most customers. . . .

  21. @Ariel – same question for other trolls who pop up here…you are having open heart surgery, do you want your surgeon to wear a mask? Simple “yes” or “no”, thanks.

  22. I’m 60/40 on masks. I wear them, I don’t want to wear them, and consider the science shaky at best. I don’t complain, but I’m also still questioning of it.
    People have noted that “THE reason” CDC didn’t advise masks from the get-go was a shortage for essential/critical workers. Except that hasn’t changed, and they could have given the same advise they are giving now “from the get-go” regarding cloth masks. So that argument doesn’t hold enough ground.
    Observing other countries, you would think masks are having an impact. Is it that? Is it stricter lockdowns? Is it that people there are respecting other’s personal space better? Is it people respecting regulations on gatherings better than we do in the U.S?
    Personally, I think a cloth mask is “better than nothing”— but what that itself means is pretty ambiguous. If requiring 300 million+ citizens to wear cloth masks for 4 months saves 300,000 lives, that’s different than if the government requires 300 million+ citizens to wear masks for the rest of their lives to save 1000 lives.
    Here’s a perspective from a couple scientific experts, written in April before anyone was up-in-arms about mask wearing, and updated in July to respond to attempted suppression of a rational scientific argument that goes against the general narrative.

  23. @Joe

    Quoted directly from the article you referenced:
    “Do we support cloth mask wearing where mandated?

    Despite the current limited scientific data detailing their effectiveness, we support the wearing of face coverings by the public when mandated and when in close contact with people whose infection status they don’t know. However, we also encourage everyone to continue to limit their time spent indoors near potentially infectious people and to not count on or expect a cloth mask or face covering to protect them or the people around them.”

    There is no argument against NOT wearing a mask. This is the argument that the anti-maskers are presenting. They’re not saying “Everyone should wear a mask and ALSO practice social distancing etc.”, they’re saying “Do some variant of (insert whatever they claim they are practicing which they are likely also lying about), but don’t wear a mask!”. Alternatively, there’s also the nut jobs who claim “COVID is the flu, don’t need to do anything about it at all”.

    There is a false dichotomy between wearing masks vs other measures, when the message should clearly be “Wear a mask AND social distance”.

  24. @Ariel

    It really has little to do with the media. The WHO, CDC, President, Vice President, Governors of pretty much every state, leaders of most countries worldwide and all leading scientists and epidemiologists are strong recommending mask usage as a way to reduce the spread. You disagree with the science on this yet somehow it is the media’s fault? Makes no sense.

  25. If a guest booked a nonrefundable room prior to the announcement of this new policy, what steps will they be able to take to secure a refund should they no longer wish to stay at the property? If a hotel modifies its terms and conditions after a reservation has been made, shouldn’t this permit the reservation to be canceled with no penalty?

  26. @David… definitely recognized that they recommend following mandates. Again, I’m 60/40 on it. I’m not opposed to following mandates for the time being.
    But their article makes it pretty clear that we should follow guidelines… in effect.. “just because”, not because of any solid studies that support cloth mask wearing.

    “Wearing a cloth mask or face covering could be better than doing nothing, but we simply don’t know at this point.”

    “we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles”

    “We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because:

    There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission”

    …so basically… “follow mandates because they are mandates”.

  27. @Joe

    The general idea is that regardless of what controlled lab experiments show, real life data suggest masks are correlated with lower COVID transmission. Is it due to the mask itself? Nobody knows, but the cost is so low compared to the benefit that basically everyone should just wear it. It’s not just wear it “because mandates”.

    I get where you’re coming from, and usually I would agree with a more nuanced discussion, but the problem is these kinds of discussions are no longer strictly academic ones with no consequence. People are acting upon them recklessly.

  28. @David.
    I don’t feel swayed one direction or the other by what you noted. Precisely what you said: “nobody knows”, precisely what the article said: “we simply don’t know”.
    Well, lets get it figured out, and fast. We either don’t need them or we do, and I either want to throw mine away, or get the solid science to firmly justify them. Indefinite limbo about it is not the path forward.

  29. @David

    It is possible that many individuals not in favor of wearing masks have this opinion because they see it as a highly flawed mathematical proposition. Their calculus may not support the logical argument for wearing a mask.

    For example, when only 4% of the population (current CFR >> actual IFR) is truly at-risk from SARS-CoV-2, why enact a policy that is universal in nature? We’re asking 100% of the population to make sacrifices that benefit only 4% of the population. We could simply ask the 4% to make their own sacrifice, for their own safety (e.g., practice a total lockdown). What is the justification for not taking this approach? Most arguments revert to those based on compassion, universal treatment of individuals, or steps to avoid stigmatization. This is political science, not biological science.

    Second, unless the majority of the population is infected with SARS-CoV-2 already, requiring universal mask wearing results in an exceptionally high False Positive (FP) rate. Assume here that:

    TP = person wears mask and is infected also with SARS-CoV-2
    TN = person does not wear mask and is not infected
    FP = person wears mask even though they are not infected with SARS-CoV-2
    FN = person does not wear mask, but is infected with SARS-CoV-2

    Mathematically speaking, universal mask wearing is a highly inaccurate [Accuracy = (TP+TN) / (TP+TN+FP+FN)] proposition. Either we’re asking countless uninfected people to wear masks, resulting in a very high false positive rate, or we have so many infected in the population that we’ve reached herd immunity. Therefore, anyone wishing to maximize the accuracy of our response to the global pandemic would be foolish to not be more anti-mask than pro-mask.

    The pro-mask camp can always claim that Sensitivity — TP / (TP+FN) — is what we should be maximizing as opposed to overall accuracy. Alternatively, pro-maskers can revert to a more rigorous Bayesian optimization in which an explicit loss function is introduced to quantify the undesirable outcome of excessive false negatives or the acceptable presence of numerous false positives. I have yet to see such a rigorous treatment by any of the experts, though the particle and Monte Carlo simulator work is a great first step.

    With these vantage points, it becomes apparent that both anti-mask and pro-mask arguments can be simultaneously different and also simultaneously valid, depending on the underlying calculus, the objective function, and the a priori costs associated with certain desired outcomes.

    On the other hand, anyone that claims a face covering provides no effectiveness against the outward projection of aerosols and water droplets is simply ignorant to physics.

  30. So, one more observation. I take it from his comments that @Joe is seeking a more globally optimized response to COVID-19, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

  31. @Roger

    Funny that you present mask wearing as a “sacrifice” that is even remotely comparable to the loss of human lives.

  32. @David

    That’s the flaw in arguing with people who believe the inconvenience is ‘too much’ Their compassion often ends when their own self-interest. To ‘sacrifice’ anything for the greater good is simply not understandable. Most people are irritated to have to wear a mask. But most people put them on knowing they are doing their part, however minute that part may be, on the off chance that they could be asymptomatic and spreading the virus.

  33. Yes, it is amazing how many people find masks to be irritating but then cast their usage as if it constitutes a monumental and selfless sacrifice for the greater good. I wonder how many of these same people are also routinely donating the majority of their disposable income to organizations like the American Cancer Society or the American Heart Association. I wonder how many are seeking out SARS-CoV-2 testing on a daily basis. Probably very few — the sacrifice to their own standard of living is simply too great. Wear a mask and pretend to save the world or make a real sacrifice and actually save the world.

  34. “most people put them on knowing they are doing their part”

    Really? I mean, I put mine on because people have told me that’s what it takes to be doing my part. I definitely don’t “know” I’m doing my part. That’s what I’m seeking: clarity.
    Aa David noted, there is correlation between using a mask and lower transmission. But the article I linked implies such correlation might be coincidental, and we don’t fully understand the correlation.
    Example: typically nobody wears a mask at parties (you’re being reckless to begin with by having a party, you’re not wearing a mask)… parties seem to be a hotspot for COVID transmission… BUT parties also fit the criteria for what scientists think is primary means of transmission to begin with… prolonged close quarters exposure to the virus.
    But now say people wear masks at the grocer, where prolonged close quarter exposure doesn’t typically occur (except maybe among employees). So now we see that in a place where people are wearing masks, virus transmission is lower than in a place where people don’t. But is it because of the mask or because of the environment?

  35. @Joe

    I think you’re drawing a false equivalence between “no conclusive proof” and “no good reason”. There isn’t conclusive proof for mask usage because the data isn’t there yet, and I’m not sure why you’re assuming there’s going to be an infinite limbo going forward. I can bet a lot of attention and research dollar will be thrown at this issue going forward, so I’m sure they’re trying to “figure it out fast”.

    But for now, mask wearing isn’t just something you should do because “you’re told to do it”, it’s because the expected utility of wearing it is higher than not (except for individuals like Roger, who assign a much higher value to his own comfort compared to human lives).

  36. @Roger

    “We’re asking 100% of the population to make sacrifices that benefit only 4% of the population. We could simply ask the 4% to make their own sacrifice, for their own safety (e.g., practice a total lockdown).”

    You kinda lost me at calling wearing a mask a sacrifice. It is the most minor of inconveniences. I barely notice it. It is sometimes a little annoying in hot weather and a pain just to have to remember to always have it but otherwise I do not get this mask martyrdom.

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *