It still appears that the age of the Universe via the hubble constant exponential curve (big bang reverse extrapolation) has more error than either stellar parallax result quoted here.
Obviously the age of the Universe is OLDER than that star, and it formed AFTER the timespan which formed the oldest globular clusters and galactic nuclei as a result of the higher than average oxygen abundance typical of type II supernovae formed by collision & merger of low mass dwarf stars in a very dense environment (clusters & galactic nuclei)... followed by the evoluition to neutron stars & black holes of these merger supergiants. ie. plenty of C & O but little Fe as it all ends up in the compact remnant.
Despite the description, it is likely that this star is one of the galaxy's own initially formed halo stars formed in the pile up of gas onto the newly formed core and ancient globular clusters of our galaxy. It may be as old as the more bog standard globular clusters which would have formed as clusters in dense gas clouds colliding with the ionisation front of radiation surrounding the newly formed galactic core (loads of stars & supernova remnants from merger supergiants & also a small but actively growing central black hole formed as a result of the 1st core stellar merger event.
It is likely that this star is typical in mass to the brighter low metallicity single stars of this type. Very low metallicity stars are H & He and therefore nearly transparent. They as a result are very small dense and hot. An O type star able to ionise its surroundings (& therefore unable to condense any more gas onto the surface may be as small as 2 solar masses and an absolute magnitude typical of a modern zero age main sequence dwarf of the same mass; (absolute magnitude +2.6 or thereabouts).
Study of more halo stars may be a far better way to pin down the age of the universe (or at least our Galaxy), than via distant gazing as there may be a significant math error in the big bang exponential curve.
Have a nice day: Ag