It’s not the same idea with earthquakes along fault lines versus earthquakes from magma movement. I’ll use Mt. St. Helens as an example, since I was there at the time.
Just like in Yellowstone, Mt. St. Helens has period explosive events. With Yellowstone it takes longer to fill up the magma chamber to turn into an explosive event - than it does at Mt. St. Helens. SO ... when St. Helens started showing a series of earthquakes, scientists took notice, because that indicated the movement of magma within the area (inside the mountain). And in that situation it WAS NOT A GOOD SIGN!
The question was, at the time - whether it was going to be a limited amount of movement and then stop and go away - or if it would continue.
To continue with the series of small earthquakes would be a VERY BAD SIGN. But, for the earthquakes to cease and the mountain to “go quiet” would be a VERY GOOD SIGN.
Well, with Mt. St. Helens ... it didn’t’ stop and the small earthquakes continued. I could feel them in Portland, Oregon, even though the mountain was in the State of Washington. And when the mountain started DEFORMING by FEET PER DAY ... that was a really really bad sign, in conjunction with those small earthquakes. That meant it was going to an ERUPTION!
Therefore in this case, the series of small earthquakes is BAD! The stopping of the small earthquakes is GOOD. That’s the EXACT OPPOSITE of what people would say in California, you see. But, that’s the way it is with earthquakes associated with the movement of magma.
I hopes that explains that many small earthquakes, along with the deformation of the ground - is something VERY BAD!
Certainly something to keep an eye on. Because if it does erupt with full force, then it could affect a lot of Americans.
My theory is based on the pressure being distributed over time versus all at once. The underlying activity is important. It depends on why there are no earthquakes. Is it because it is building up? Adding and accumulating? Or is the underlying activity slowing down.