Not even good statistics to back this statement up
Discussion
These types of events are rare - sometimes decades go by sometimes hundreds of years so yeah .. after an eruption you’ll have a lot more time ahead of you without further eruptions. Similar to major earthquakes.
This is true, but the frequency is not predictable and the period after a major event also leads to elevated risks of future events and there is no guarantee that subsequent events are smaller. If an area is really well studied and it's a large magnitude event then geologists may be able to predict the the risk has dropped.
It would need to be an active volcano and those are not likely to lead to loss of life if they erupt every couple of years. The more active ones pose some threat every 10 to 100 years but it would still be closer to 100 just because you need this amount of time to become complacent again. The really serious and less active are 200 years plus so yeah … if you just had a major eruption, it’s not likely to repeat for a long time in human time scales unless it’s an active volcano. Geological time scales and all…
I agree, it does depend on scale, both size and time. Here is a single example from the Mt St Helens Wikipedia page. Two explosive eruptions within 2 years...
"Roughly 700 years of dormancy were broken in about 1480, when large amounts of pale gray dacite pumice and ash started to erupt, beginning the Kalama period. The 1480 eruption was several times larger than that of May 18, 1980.[32] In 1482, another large eruption rivaling the 1980 eruption in volume is known to have occurred. Ash and pumice piled 6 miles (9.7 km) northeast of the volcano to a thickness of 3 feet (0.9 m); 50 miles (80 km) away, the ash was 2 inches (5 cm) deep. Large pyroclastic flows and mudflows subsequently rushed down St. Helens' west flanks and into the Kalama River drainage system."