[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Maru

She was counting the area of effect of the plume rather than just the actual size, since the immediate fall out zone would be rather large and big enough to effect most of the US directly. There were some other details that I can't recall directly... She compared the after effects would be similar (but worse) to Krakatoa (I think it was), seeing that the ash blocked sunlight for the rest of the world, causing mass famine, extinctions, etc...

I'd read articles where scientists had stepped back claims of the effects of it being world-ending, i.e. killing us all (but it's certainly possible). Personally, I don't go about life worrying about any of it. Any number of things could take our lives at any time and super-volcanoes are the least of our problems... statistically speaking. Who knows, by time that even comes, we may even have technology to prevent it/limit it's area of effect...

Krakatoa – No plant growth for 2 years
https://www.iceagenow.info/krakatoa-...rowth-2-years/

Statistically speaking, sure. As you say, we can't go worrying about that every day. Besides it is only one of many global catastrophic risks.

Going by the past eruptions volcanoes can cause damage to varying degrees.
The global impact of Krakatoa or Tambora was relatively limited (pretty sunsets after Tambora were painted by Turner), some cooling and crop failures. Other eruptions were more serious. There is some evidence that an eruption caused a mini ice age in medieval Europe with widespread famine etc; or even more serious when super eruption might have almost wiped out early humans 74000 years ago (genetic bottleneck).
As to comparison between Krakatoa (Krakatau) and Yellowstone, here's a diagram from USGS. As you can see, Yellowstone would be 10 to 100 times bigger. Our civilization would be set back in a significant way.

Amounts of ash deposited