It was already clear from my first post; you could have simply asked questions, instead of claiming you knew my intent and posting wrong assumptions.

The topic here was never "the next big one" or "major future event on the Hayward and San Andreas Faults for the next 30 years". If you want to start a separate HN thread discussing either of those, you're free to. This ain't it.

I actually dug up the USGS report to cite the epicenter, depth, intensity to teach people here basic literacy to make them immune from sensationalist reports without context. I showed what zipcode was affected and correctly stated how its population is almost zero and has no tall structures. Hence, "big yawn" is ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶l̶o̶a̶d̶e̶d̶, it's a 120% accurate characterization of an earthquake miles up the foothills inside a county park. I'm not going to misrepresent those facts. I can't see why anyone else would.

̶M̶i̶n̶i̶m̶i̶z̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶r̶i̶s̶k̶ Correctly stating that the risk of aftershock on today's event was minimal, and even in the tiny likelihood there had been one, given the original 5.1 caused zero reported damage, a (say) 4.6 aftershock would likely cause... zero damage. Zipcode 95140 is not downtown SJ or SF or LA.

To do otherwise would be to distort the facts on today's non-event into some emotionally-driven narrative that minimizes other actually serious events which actually resulted in deaths, injuries, destroyed houses, power outages; why should we distort the facts like that? It's actively harmful.
Sure, people can be needlessly frightened by sensationalist media reports, while simultaneously ignoring other natural disasters which flattened countries. Surely that's a trend we should fight against, yes; not contribute to?

> Experts believe a major quake in the Bay Area is “likely” (>=6.7) by 2032 per the USGS

That was never the topic of this thread, also many of us who already all knew that a decade ago. So why try to hijack this thread with that? By all means start a separate thread to discuss it, and I'll contribute constructively over there.

̶C̶o̶m̶p̶a̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶q̶u̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶p̶o̶r̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ Comparing distorted sensationalism around non-events, to other contemporary events, including other natural disasters: "Or worry about Cuba, Haiti, Puerto Rico reconstruction from Hurricane Ian; Cuba got it bad." Even failing to accurately identify the epicenter, intensity and depth (facts which are typically available within a few minutes on USGS.gov) actively pander to that sensationalism; I posted them; you haven't discussed them once.

To summarize: today's non-event in 95140 caused zero deaths, zero injuries and zero damage; compared to others that actually impacted people and continue to over a month later, like Hurricane Ian. The earthquake early-warning systems worked as intended and that experience makes us stronger for the future. (By comparison, PG&E-started fires and electricity outages have caused far more disruption this year than earthquakes (:zero), and again that's a major political issue currently in California, not this.)
Almost any other minor media story is more worthy than this one, this in particular on a day with multiple huge stories (foreign and domestic) worthy of coverage. Pick any other story worth being covered more, to replace the US soccer one.