I think you only hate the idea because you're misinterpreting it. Statements like "the Earth is spherical" or "this vaccine has 90% effectivity" fall fully in

I think you only hate the idea because you're misinterpreting it. Statements like "the Earth is spherical" or "this vaccine has 90% effectivity" fall fully in the phenomenological realm, i.e., the things that we experience through our senses and we can know. Since we have consistent sensory experiences (also aided by technology) that point to the Earth being spherical, Kant would say that we can be confident that it is spherical as a phenomenon - which is what actually matters, and the same with vaccines: dying and getting sick are experiences that we can perceive as a phenomenon, so antivaxxers will find no excuse in Kant's philosophy. In this example, some aspects of the noumenon (what we cannot know) are for example: OK, but what actually is dying from COVID? Maybe we reincarnate? Maybe we go to heaven? Maybe we are just bits in a simulation? Maybe dying is an illusion? We cannot know. But this doesn't affect the usefulness of taking the vaccine (someone could choose not to take it because they think death is an illusion or they will reincarnate or something like that, but then that's their beliefs' fault, not Kant's, and they would still have to admit that taking the vaccine makes sense for people who don't want to die because they don't share those beliefs). I think it's hard to find these ideas unsettling, as they actually have become so ingrained to seem like common sense for most rational-minded people. The core idea is just separation between scientific knowledge and metaphysics/religion (but it's of course compatible with atheistic/materialistic views, because one doesn't need to assume that the noumenon contains anything of practical importance -like heaven, immortal souls or stuff like that-, it could be basically irrelevant for all practical purposes).