Yeah, it and others like it are a bit misleading as a financial comparison.
While getting it for $300/day is potentially feasible, it doesn't mention the trade-offs, nor the requirements and limitations of doing it for post-retirement/elderly. It also disregards that they still have fixed expenses back home, so it's not as though it's literally cheaper or even the same, it's an extra cost. Leaving aside they compared a per person twin share price to that of a single person in Sydney - when it's pretty well known that the bulk of costs are for the first person, and the second only adds a smaller share.
Just clickbait to try to make their business more attractive, rather than a genuine, useful comparison.