Not really. Though obviously a major catastrophe for the people in the region of Vesuvius, and one which received an Imperial response, Pompeii and Herculaneum were fairly modest Roman resort-cities at a time when Rome was nearing the peak of its prosperity. Imagine if Aspen or Fort Meyers were to suddenly be consumed by a natural disaster. We'd have a few weeks of news broadcasts, some government disaster response updates, maybe a few charity drives, and then we'd all collectively move on with our lives. More or less the same sort of thing happened with Pompeii and Herculaneum. The event echoes down through the sources for centuries, but in a way which doesn't really reflect the impact that it had at the time on actual Romans. We hear much less of similar natural disasters in provinces far from Italy (Antioch was basically destroyed by earthquake on several occasions and barely gets a mention except when an Emperor is present or a war is happening.) In fact, if the eruption involved and the cities which were destroyed hadn't been in Italy (and thus people related to leading Romans were caught up in it) we might never have known it happened until archaeologists stumbled across the ruins. But because it DID happen in the richest and most luxurious part of Italy, lots of writers at the time wound up writing about it and later writers and historians referred back to it. But really--the wider Roman world mostly just. . . went on with their lives. Compared to the absolutely traumatized reaction that Romans all over the Mediterranean had to the Vandal sack of Rome under Alaric that happened 400 years later, the destruction of Pompeii was just a sad tragic moment that most people forgot about after a little while.