Then overall health, how many other pre-existing conditions and ongoing health issues patients already have.
Then there is the dose and the exposure the patient has.
These are by far the largest contributors.
I find it hard to believe that they have successfully disentangled all these confounding factors.
Then and only conditionally perhaps the factors that the director lists. In all, I find the blog a staggering piece of how NOT to communicate, how not to send the wrong message. Most people will read this as: "blood type A is really bad"
GWAS in general is weak stuff, even in the cited paper the odds ratios are 1.5 and 1.77 which does not indicate a particularly strong effect. Statistically may be significant, but in a practical sense not actionable. As far as GWAS studies go most turn out to be nonsense anyway.