I am quite familiar with the delayed choice quantum erasure experiment, the double slit experiment variants, and Tom's explanation of the double slit. What I (and the OP) are proposing is simply replacing the electronic coincidence counter (or detector system) in such an experiment with actual physical media, paper data sheets in envelopes. This is less of a question about the inner workings of the universe and more of a morbid curiosity over semantics.
So it's not that the detectors detected an interference pattern. That would contradict the whole premise of the double slit. They had detectors on, then somehow created an uncertainty as to which slit the particle went through by muddling or making unreliable the data(which path information), which then allowed for the interference pattern to still be produced (though to a lesser degree).
I am not disputing this fact in any way. The second "detector" I referenced was the backboard or target detector, that would show incidences of wave interference when the particle detector data was erased (or in the case of paper in an envelope, burnt). I completely understand that the experiment you've referenced proves that this effect can be reproduced. We're simply pondering the feasibility of replacing the electronic or computer data recording/erasing mechanisms with paper results, in envelopes, as in Tom's description. Does that make sense?
Also I don't think any physicist worth anything would argue that consciousness isn't neccesary. Consciousness is always neccessary...otherwise the results of the experiments cannot be known. The answer to your thought experiment in the vacuum is that it doesn't eliminate consciousness from the equation. That is impossible. What physicists argue is the idea that consciousness causes the wave collapse.
The necessity of consciousness is one of the most embattled concepts in quantum mechanics. It's the reason why we have so many interpretations of quantum mechanics, and none are universally agreed upon.
Everett's many worlds interpretation certainly discounts the necessity of a conscious observer; arguing that any time the wave function of a particle collapses, parallel universes split off. We just happen to inhabit a universe where we observe the most probable outcome. The cosmologist in that video, Sean Carroll, is quite vocal in his opinion that conscious observation is essentially woo.
Werner Heisenberg himself argued against the necessity of consciousness in the collapse of the probability function:
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."
We are both here because we agree with Tom's interpretation of reality, but some of the smartest people in the world are working very hard on ideas about things like membranes in higher dimensional space, that could serve to refine or even reinforce our own truth. If we refuse to entertain and integrate modern science, it may move on without us.