HogansHero said: "I am not sure what features here you think have shaped Alex differently. I don't sense the aloneness or difference in interactions. Maybe you can explain. To me the main difference is that the actor is closer to the camera than to the audience but this is also true with the Met streaming, and I don't think that represents an adaptation. "
Two elements: dyadic encounter and validation. Both are absent from the streaming version of the play and point up the sense of aloneness; more so than is possible in a theater. In the theater, there was a perceptible give and take between Alex and the audience. Whether/not the (physically present) theater audience is supposed or expected to acknowledge the dyadic encounter isn't really relevant. It's present and palpable. In the theater, the perceived audience is more likely to be a real person/people. Dyadic encounter is an inherent characteristic of live theater.
In contrast, vlogging/internet use is not a shared experience. Aloneness is inherent in the medium. (how often are any of us uploading/downloading our thoughts on this Board, for example, in conjunction with another person? Most are alone with/at their device.)
Alex isn't on a video chat, or in a live chat room; he's neither typing nor getting responses of any kind. He's uploading only (my imagination says, YouTube). No dyadic encounter - and in the streaming version, Alex chooses that option. I find that interesting.
RE: validation: In the theater, Alex receives validation for his thoughts via the audience's response (i.e. laughter, applause, silence, etc...). Again, whether/not that validation is supposed to be acknowledged isn't relevant. Because it's present, it shapes a perception of Alex's perceived audience as being real/present (as opposed to him talking to a non-responsive wall). In contrast, vlogger Alex receives no such validation. It opens up the possibility for some interesting questions. Is there a possibility he does not want any feedback? By uploading only, Alex has the choice of returning to check for comments/response --- or not. That's not a possibility in a dyadic encounter; response in a necessary element of its definition.
I also find that the differences in set design and sound (even if the choices made for the stream weren't all intentional, but rather by necessity) point up the sense of aloneness. The theater version was much warmer, and the projections were dynamic. In the theater, you could imagine furniture, etc. In contrast, the stream was much starker (again, not necessarily by deliberate design).
In the stream version, the absence of furniture played MUCH differently (visually) than as designed for the theater. For me, however, I LOOOOOVED that! In the theater, Alex was a man who could have had furniture (the audience just had to imagine it). In the stream, he did not.
HogansHero said: "I share with you the appreciation for what they accomplished but I don't see it as some revolutionary approach outside of the context of our present condition. (I am not trying to dissuade you from anything you have written. I am glad you are finding this resonance.)"
I don't think all products/productions need to be revolutionary.
I only choose to recognize that this is a first of its kind (a stage to stream adaptation), and that it was well accomplished even if all the choices made RE: production values weren't deliberately designed.
HogansHero said: "With isolation streaming, the audience is asked to use a lot of imagination just to get to the level of what a live theatrical experience can achieve."
...or not. For this particular show/streamed production, I find more value in letting it live within its (2nd) medium. 
---------------
PS: I enjoyed discussing this w/you
, it was still a first of its kind.
