FWIW, I've been expecting something like this. The Pacific Rim ("ring of fire" or whatever you want to call it) has been overly active, and that second 7+ magnitude earthquake in Kamchatka was definitely not a coincidence. That said, earthquakes are not my area, but it is a topic we talk about in terms of catastrophic failure of storage systems as "Hayward Fault Tolerance" where we have tertiary backups in a region outside of the earthquake zone.
At mag 5 there's localised damage, most characteristically of goods knocked off grocery store shelves, with glass-bottled liquids often producing a photogenic mess.
At mag 6, pre-code construction or at-risk areas (bay fill, river bottoms, sand) may see significant structural damage. The 2014 South Napa earthquake is the most recent of these, and downtown Napa was hit pretty hard, due to terrain (reclaimed river bottomlands, bay-fill, and some old masonry construction). See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_South_Napa_earthquake>.
Mag 7 is the scale of some of the largest quakes recorded in California, including the 1906 San Francisco quake. This would create widespread damage within 100+ miles of the epicentre. Marc Reisner's A Dangerous Place (2003) includes a detailed description of impacts of a mag 7 quake along the Hayward fault, which would extend well beyond the immediate region into Southern California due to reliance on delta and Central Valley water projects.
<https://baynature.org/article/book-review-a-dangerous-place/>
Mag 8 is about the upper bound of expected seismic activity on the San Andreas and related fault systems.
4.3 will certainly get your attention if you're relatively close-by... but yeah, worth a "did you feel that?!" on the local news and not much more.
The revelation that the ground does not stay where I left it was quite disturbing.
This is why I use every chance I can to espouse a scale like Japanese Shindo which actually measures the surface shaking (what matters to civilians) rather than the Magnitude scale that just measures the energy of the earthquake (more interesting to seismologists). Japanese news always focuses on the maximum observed Shindo which immediately tells you had bad it felt/affected people living nearby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Meteorological_Agency_se...
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=40.31872...
I'm pretty sure this is the closest epicenter to SF I've seen too (at least one that was noticeable)
Apparently 7.6km depth is "very shallow"
It's fun to think about it - some Japanese people would move to CA just because of the more stable geology.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Fault#The_next_%22...
I question their research skills. I would avoid California if geology was my main motivator.
Luckily it was short.
https://old.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1nnia94/earthquake...