But we still don't know if the persons with multiple bad risk factors were those who ended with bad outcomes? As far as I understand, if it was like that or not can't be seen from the paper at all, and I can imagine that it could have happened. I would really prefer the more raw data to the tables with the selected means and deviations given.
Indeed, checking that the two groups look similar after randomization is completely optional. This study does an OK job of doing so.
There's both known and unknown reasons why someone might be predisposed to have a bad outcome. The reason we randomize, rather than try and make "balanced" groups, is that it addresses both unknown and known factors.
Yes, you can, by chance, get more people who are going to have a bad outcome in one group; about 5% of the time you'll get a p<0.05 finding this way. :P
Yes, we can see some things are a little unbalanced. But the effect is so massive: we might see 4/5 of the control's rate of ICU admissions if the "one prognostic bad risk factor" determined outcome entirely; instead, we see 1/50 of the rate.