Hmm, I'm not too certain what you are looking for in terms of answers; but I would caution against broad conclusions such as this. You see the Renaissance, as it is called, is a difficult thing to grasp ontologicaly. Not many people agree on exactly when or where it happened, which fields it affected, and so on; while others deny that it ever happened.

When I say people dispute whether it happened or not, no one doubts the advances that were made in what roughly constitutes an 'era'; however, whether the term 'rebirth' is anything more than a self-gratifying, aggrandizing name for Europeans to call their contribution to society and later maintained to justify notions of racial superiority is frequently brought into question.

To answer your question though, no. The question implies a causality that really masks the underlying circumstances occurring at that time, and ignores the fact that the plague hit Europe in waves over many centuries. The coming of the plague to Europe was made possible by a warmer climate and the opening of trade routes that enabled the spread of the pathogen across the Eurasian landmass. These trade routes carried much of the culture of the "East" westward toward a continent emerging from an Age of Faith (the Dark Ages). The routes brought ideas and culture that would, over the course of a few centuries, revolutionize Europe, but the routes also enabled the spread of the pathogen. The story is rather old and recurring in human history; increased trade brings increased contact which brings disease.

It is important to remember that there was no definitive Renaissance in that all thought, art, culture, society, and technology changed; rather, each sort of asymmetrically grew. But in the instance of the artistic Renaissance emerging out of the Northern Italian City-States, it was those same trade routes bringing the plague as those that reconnected Latinum to it's long lost sibling, Byzantium - inspiring the likes of Cimabue and Giotto into a religious fervor.